Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • G. Ratna Raj (D) by Lrs Versus Sri Muthukumarasamy Permanent Fund Ltd. & Anr (2019 (4) CTC 122) The Supreme Court Followed Its

    Uploaded by

    Memoirs on Miscellanea
    31 views1 page
    The Supreme Court of India followed its previous ruling in B. Janakiramaiah Chetty vs A.K. Parthasarathi where it held that if the plaintiff is present on the day of presenting evidence but the defendant is absent despite being served summons, any decree passed is an ex-parte decree. In this case, the defendant was absent after cross-examining the plaintiff but before presenting their own evidence. The Supreme Court ruled that the preliminary decree passed in this case was an ex-parte decree and not decided on its merits, as the case would not fall under the Explanation to Order 17, Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

    Original Description:

    Original Title

    ex parte

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    The Supreme Court of India followed its previous ruling in B. Janakiramaiah Chetty vs A.K. Parthasarathi where it held that if the plaintiff is present on the day of presenting evidence but the defendant is absent despite being served summons, any decree passed is an ex-parte decree. In this case, the defendant was absent after cross-examining the plaintiff but before presenting their own evidence. The Supreme Court ruled that the preliminary decree passed in this case was an ex-parte decree and not decided on its merits, as the case would not fall under the Explanation to Order 17, Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    31 views1 page

    G. Ratna Raj (D) by Lrs Versus Sri Muthukumarasamy Permanent Fund Ltd. & Anr (2019 (4) CTC 122) The Supreme Court Followed Its

    Uploaded by

    Memoirs on Miscellanea
    The Supreme Court of India followed its previous ruling in B. Janakiramaiah Chetty vs A.K. Parthasarathi where it held that if the plaintiff is present on the day of presenting evidence but the defendant is absent despite being served summons, any decree passed is an ex-parte decree. In this case, the defendant was absent after cross-examining the plaintiff but before presenting their own evidence. The Supreme Court ruled that the preliminary decree passed in this case was an ex-parte decree and not decided on its merits, as the case would not fall under the Explanation to Order 17, Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    of 1

    EX-PARTE CASE LAW

    In G. Ratna Raj (D) by LRs VERSUS Sri Muthukumarasamy Permanent

    Fund Ltd. & Anr (2019 (4) CTC 122) the Supreme Court followed its

    judgement in the B. Janakiramaiah Chetty vs A.K. Parthasarathi and Ors.case

    where it had held that if after the stage of filing written statements and

    objections, the plaintiffs are present on the day of presenting evidence and

    defendants are not despite being served summons, the decree passed by the

    court is an ex parte decree.

    Defendant set ex parte after cross-examining plaintiff and before leading their

    evidence. A preliminary decree was passed. The Supreme Court had that the

    case was not decide on merits and the preliminary decree was an ex-parte

    decree.- Case in hand would not fall under Explanation to Order 17, Rule 2.

    https://www.livelaw.in/top-stories/decree-passed-on-plaintiffs-evidence-without-defendants-
    appearance-at-trial-is-ex-parte-decree-sc-142586

    You might also like