During the trial, the aforesaid suit was listed for hearing on 16.03.2009.
15/2009 before the Additional District Court Fast Track Court No.1, Chidambaram.
1202 of 2014.
Aggrieved by the said order, the appellant defendant has filed Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.
The respondent plaintiff has filed the aforesaid suit Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by MADHU BALA for specific performance of the Agreement dated Date 2019.02.14 103255 IST Reason 11.10.1995.
117/2009.
The Trial Court, while companysidering the application filed by the appellant herein, under Order IX Rule 13 of CPC, has companysidered the past events in the suit stating that the appellant is trying to protract the litigation dismissed the application by order dated 30.06.2009.
It is a case of the respondent plaintiff that out of total companysideration of Rs.3,00,000/ Rupees Three Lakhs , he has already paid Rs.2,25,000/ Rupees Two Lakh Twenty Five Thousand and in spite of his readiness to pay the balance amount, the appellant defendant is number ready to execute the sale deed by receiving the balance companysideration amount.
The appellant defendant has filed the application under Order IX Rule 13 of CPC, for setting aside the ex parte decree in I.A. No.
On the aforesaid date, on the ground that there was numberrepresentation on behalf of the appellant, the appellant was put ex parte, and ex parte decree was passed, decreeing the suit.
It is a case of the appellant that in spite of showing sufficient cause for number attending the companyrt on 16.03.2009, the Trial Court has erroneously rejected the application filed under Order IX Rule 13 of CPC.
The matter was further carried by way of Civil Revision Petition No.
92/1997 on the file of Sub Judge, Chidambaram, aggrieved by the order dated 17.04.2014, passed by the High Court of Judicature at Madras, dismissing the Civil Revision Petition NPD No.
Same was dismissed by order dated 13.07.2010.
By virtue of the aforesaid order, the High Court has companyfirmed the order of the Trial Court, dismissing the application filed by the petitioner, under Order IX Rule 13 of CPC.
He has also pleaded that as he was suffering from viral fever, he also did number attend the companyrt.
SUBHASH REDDY,J. Leave granted.
This civil appeal is preferred by the defendant, in Original Suit No.
In the aforesaid application, the case of the appellant was that on 16.03.2009, there was a boycott of all the companyrts on the call of Bar Association, as such, all the advocates boycotted the companyrts in the District of Cuddalore including Chidambaram District.
