Sri.C.Kandasamy Gounder v. M/S.Punarnava Ayurveda

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 21.09.2016

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.RAJA C.M.A.No.1969 of 2016 C.Kandasamy Gounder ..

Appellant / Petitioner / plaintiff -vsM/s Punarnava Ayurveda Private Limited having its registered office at No.A-2, Phase-1, Parsn Sesh Nestle Nanjundapuram Road Coimbatore.

..

Respondent / Respondent Defandent Memorandum of Grounds of Civil Miscellaneous Appeal under Order 43, Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Code, against the order dated 03.03.2016 made in I.A.No.475 of 2015 in O.S.No.1107 of 2008 on the file of the learned Principal District Munsif, Coimbatore. For Appellant ::

Mr.S.Rameshkumar

JUDGMENT

The appellant has come to this Court, aggrieved by the impugned decretal order dated 3.3.2016 passed in I.A.No.475 of 2015 in O.S.No.1107 of 2008 by the learned Principal District Munsif, Coimbatore, challenging the reasoning and the approach adopted by the trial Court in not restoring the suit on its file, on the ground that the trial Court ought not to have dismissed the interlocutory application filed under Order 9, Rule 9 read with Section 151 of CPC. The reason is that when the suit was dismissed for default on 10.7.2012, the application under Order 9, Rule 9 read with Section 151 of CPC to restore the suit was filed on 19.7.2012 itself. But the trial Court has dismissed the said application wrongly holding that the suit was dismissed for default on 27.10.2010.

Pausing for a while, when this Court asked the learned counsel for the appellant whether the original order dismissing the suit for default was filed before the Registry, he was unaware of the original order not being filed or even applied for. Therefore, this Court is not able to agree with the case of the appellant that the suit was dismissed for default only on 10.7.2012. This apart, when the appellant has sought for a relief of mandatory and permanent injunction, the trial Court has come to https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.

the conclusion that after presenting the petition for restoration of the suit on 18.12.2012, the appellant/plaintiff has miserably failed to evince any interest to get the application numbered by bringing the fact to the notice of the Court. It has also further held that the suit was filed only with a view to harass and trouble the respondent/defendant. On this score, the trial Court has come to the conclusion that the application under Order 9, Rule 9 of CPC was not bona fide. In any event, when the original order dismissing the suit for default has not been filed, this Court is not able to find any infirmity with the impugned order. Accordingly, the civil miscellaneous appeal is dismissed.

Ss Sd/- Assistant Registrar (CS-III) /TRUE COPY/ Sub-Assistant Registrar To

1. The Principal District Munsif Coimbatore C.M.A.No.1969 of 2016 GR[CO] MK:20/10/2016 21.09.2016 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/