{"id":97225,"date":"2007-04-05T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2007-04-04T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/madhana-gurusamy-vs-the-tamil-nadu-kadhi-and-village-on-5-april-2007"},"modified":"2019-03-24T04:08:29","modified_gmt":"2019-03-23T22:38:29","slug":"madhana-gurusamy-vs-the-tamil-nadu-kadhi-and-village-on-5-april-2007","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/madhana-gurusamy-vs-the-tamil-nadu-kadhi-and-village-on-5-april-2007","title":{"rendered":"Madhana Gurusamy vs The Tamil Nadu Kadhi And Village on 5 April, 2007"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Madras High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Madhana Gurusamy vs The Tamil Nadu Kadhi And Village on 5 April, 2007<\/div>\n<pre>       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT\n\nDATED: 05\/04\/2007\n\nCORAM:\nTHE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.NAGAMUTHU\n\nC.R.P. NPD (MD) No.748 OF 2005\nand\nC.M.P.(MD) NO.4643 OF 2005\nand\nM.P.(MD) NO.1 OF 2006\n\nMadhana Gurusamy\t\t\t.. Petitioner\n\nVs\n\nThe Tamil Nadu Kadhi and Village\nIndustries Board,\nRep. By Assistant Director\nVirudhunagar\t\t\t\t.. Respondents\n\n\nPrayer\n\n\nThis Civil Revision Petition has been filed under Section 115 of C.P.C.\nagainst the fair and decreetal order of the learned Sub Judge, Virudhunagar\ndated 17.02.2005 and made in I.A.No.211 of 2004 in O.S.No.51 of 1998.\n\n\n!For Petitioner \t: Mrs. Lakshmi Gopinath\n\n^For Respondent \t: Mr. K. Mahendran\n\n\n:ORDER\n<\/pre>\n<p>\tThis Civil Revision Petition has been filed by the petitioner, challenging<br \/>\nthe order dated 17.02.2005 made in I.A.No.211 of 2004 in O.S.No.51 of 1998 on<br \/>\nthe file of the learned Subordinate Judge, Virudhunagar.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t2. Brief facts of the case are as follows:-\n<\/p>\n<p>\tThe petitioner herein is the second defendant and the respondent herein is<br \/>\nthe plaintiff in O.S.No.51 of 1998 on the file of the learned Subordinate Judge,<br \/>\nVirudhunagar.  The said suit was filed by the respondent herein for recovery of<br \/>\na sum of Rs.1,91,341\/- with interest based on a business transaction between the<br \/>\nparties.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t3. In the said suit, the petitioner did not appear on 27.06.2001 when the<br \/>\ncase was posted for trial and therefore he was set exparte and an exparte decree<br \/>\nwas passed.  Subsequently, it appears that an execution petition has also been<br \/>\nfiled against the petitioner.  After notice was served regarding the execution<br \/>\npetition, the petitioner says that he came to know about the exparte decree<br \/>\npassed on 27.06.2001 and thereafter he took steps to file an Interlocutory<br \/>\nApplication to set aside the exparte decree.  While doing so, there had occurred<br \/>\na delay of 1194 days.  Seeking to condone the said delay, the petitioner has<br \/>\nfiled an application in I.A.No.211 of 2004 before the lower Court.  In the<br \/>\naffidavit filed in support of the petition, the petitioner has offered his<br \/>\nexplanation for the delay stating that he had no knowledge about the passing of<br \/>\nexparte decree on 27.06.2001 and he came to have knowledge only from the notice<br \/>\nserved in respect of the execution petition.  The respondent herein has filed a<br \/>\ncounter in the said petition wherein he has stated before the lower Court that<br \/>\non receiving summons, the petitioner had engaged a counsel and thereafter,<br \/>\nthough the case was posted for 30 hearings, the petitioner did not choose to<br \/>\nfile his written statement and therefore finally on 27.06.2001, the Court passed<br \/>\nthe exparte decree.  Further, he has stated that the delay has not been properly<br \/>\nexplained.  After considering the relevant materials, the lower Court has<br \/>\ndismissed the said application holding that the delay has not been properly<br \/>\nexplained away to the satisfaction of the Court.  It is the said order which is<br \/>\nnow under challenge.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned<br \/>\ncounsel for the respondent.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t5. At the outset, before going to the facts of the case, it is necessary<br \/>\nto refer to the judgment of the Hon&#8217;ble Supreme Court reported in (1998)7<br \/>\nSupreme Court Cases 123 (N. Balakrishnan Vs. N. Krishnamurthy) wherein the<br \/>\nHon&#8217;ble Supreme Court has elaborately dealt with the proper approach to be made<br \/>\nin cases where a Court is required to consider delay condonation petitions filed<br \/>\nunder Sec.5 of the Limitation Act.  In paragraph 9 of the judgment the Hon&#8217;ble<br \/>\nSupreme Court has held as follows:\n<\/p>\n<p>&#8220;Para 9. Once the Court accepts the explanation as sufficient, it is the result<br \/>\nof positive exercise of discretion and normally the Superior Court should not<br \/>\ndisturb such finding, much less in revisional jurisdiction, unless the exercise<br \/>\nof discretion was or wholly untenable grounds or arbitrary or perverse.\n<\/p>\n<p>But it is a different matter when the first court refuses to condone the delay.<br \/>\nIn such cases, the Superior Court would be free to consider the cause shown for<br \/>\nthe delay afresh and it is open to such superior Court to come to its own<br \/>\nfinding even untrammelled by the conclusion of the Lower Court.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>\t6. In the case on hand, since the lower Court has refused to condone the<br \/>\ndelay, as observed by the Hon&#8217;ble Supreme Court, it is for this Court to<br \/>\nconsider the cause shown for the delay afresh and to come to its own finding<br \/>\nuntrammelled by the conclusion of the lower Court.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t7. Keeping this in mind if the facts of the case on hand are approached, I<br \/>\nam of the view that the delay needs to be condoned as the same has been<br \/>\nsatisfactorily explained.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t8. Of Course, it is true that on service of summons, the petitioner had<br \/>\nappeared and engaged a counsel and the case was also posted for about 30<br \/>\nhearings for filing written statement and till written statement was not filed<br \/>\nresulting in passing of exparte decree.  But the learned counsel would submit<br \/>\nthat the petitioner was in Kerala and he was not duly informed by his counsel<br \/>\nabout the progress in the case.  The fact that the petitioner was residing only<br \/>\nin Kerala is not in dispute.  It is also to be seen from the records that the<br \/>\ndecree was transferred for execution of a decree in Kerala State which would<br \/>\nclearly establish that the petitioner was not in his native place and he was all<br \/>\nalong only in Kerala.  Therefore there is every possibility that the counsel who<br \/>\nappeared in the lower Court would not have informed the petitioner about the<br \/>\nprogress of the case.  Though it is the duty of the petitioner to have contacted<br \/>\nhis counsel to know about the stage of the case, the said failure of the<br \/>\nlitigant should not be so seriously viewed to deny his right to contest the<br \/>\ncase.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t9. In the same judgment referred to above the Hon&#8217;ble Supreme Court in<br \/>\nPara 8 of the judgment has observed as follows:\n<\/p>\n<p>&#8220;Para 8.  The appellant&#8217;s conduct does not on the whole warrant to castigate him<br \/>\nas an irresponsible litigant.  What he did in defending the suit was not very<br \/>\nmuch far from what a litigant would broadly do.  Of course, it may be said that<br \/>\nhe should have been more vigilant by visiting his advocate at short intervals to<br \/>\ncheck up the progress of the litigation.  But during these days when everybody<br \/>\nis fully occupied with his own avocation of life an omission to adopt such extra<br \/>\nvigilance need not be used as a ground to depict him as a litigant not aware of<br \/>\nhis responsibilities, and to visit him with drastic consequences.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t10. In view of the above observations made by the Hon&#8217;ble Supreme Court, I<br \/>\nam of the view that by refusing to condone the delay, the petitioner should not<br \/>\nbe allowed to face the drastic consequences of exparte decree for such a huge<br \/>\nsum of money.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t11. Further, in Para 13 of the judgment, the Hon&#8217;ble Supreme Court has<br \/>\nheld as follows:\n<\/p>\n<p>Para 13. It must be remembered that in every case of delay, there can be some<br \/>\nlapse on the part of the litigant concerned.  That alone is not enough to turn<br \/>\ndown his plea and to shut the door against him.  If the explanation does not<br \/>\nsmack of mala fides or it is not put forth as part of a dilatory strategy, the<br \/>\nCourt must show utmost consideration to the suitor.  But when there is<br \/>\nreasonable ground to think that the delay was occasioned by the party<br \/>\ndeliberately to gain time, then the Court should lean against acceptance of the<br \/>\nexplanation.  While condoning the delay, the court should not forget the<br \/>\nopposite party altogether.  It must be borne in mind that he is a loser and he<br \/>\ntoo would have incurred quite large litigation expenses.  It would be a salutary<br \/>\nguideline that when court condone the delay due to laches on the part of the<br \/>\napplicant, the Court shall compensate the opposite party for his loss.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t12. In the case on hand also, the explanation offered by the petitioner<br \/>\ndoes not smack of mala fides and it does not reflect any dilatory strategy on<br \/>\nthe part of the petitioner to drag on the proceedings.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t13. Applying all the above said principles laid down by the Hon&#8217;ble<br \/>\nSupreme Court, I am of the considered view that the delay in this case has been<br \/>\nproperly explained away to the satisfaction of the Court and therefore the same<br \/>\nrequires to be condoned.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t14. While so doing, the loss which would have been sustained by the<br \/>\nrespondent on account of the delay in filing the petition to file I.A to set<br \/>\naside the exparte decree cannot be lost sight of.  The Hon&#8217;ble Supreme Court has<br \/>\nissued a salutary guideline in this regard in Para 13 of the said Judgment.\n<\/p>\n<p>&#8220;When Court condones the delay due to laches on the part of the applicant, the<br \/>\nCourt shall compensate the opposite party for his loss.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>\t15. In the counter filed by the respondent before the lower Court, he has<br \/>\nstated that if the delay is condoned for any reason, it would result in loss to<br \/>\nthe respondent and he has further stated that if the delay is condoned, the<br \/>\npetitioner may be directed to deposit the entire decree amount before the lower<br \/>\nCourt.  In this regard, it is to be seen that in pursuant to the direction<br \/>\nissued by this Court on 26.08.2005, the petitioner has already deposited 50% of<br \/>\nthe suit claim.  The learned counsel for the respondent has now offered to<br \/>\ndeposit another 25% of the suit claim before the lower Court.  This Court is of<br \/>\nthe view that this  will safeguard the interest of the respondent.  Further on<br \/>\nthe question of costs, I am of the view that directing the petitioner to pay a<br \/>\nsum of Rs.2000\/- would adequately compensate the loss sustained by the<br \/>\nrespondent.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t16. For all the reasons stated above, this C.R.P. is allowed; the delay of<br \/>\n1194 days in filing the I.A seeking to set aside the exparte decree dated<br \/>\n27.06.2001, is condoned and I.A.No.211 of 2004 in O.S.No.51 of 1998 stands<br \/>\nallowed.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t17. The petitioner is directed to deposit another 25% of the suit claim<br \/>\nbefore the lower Court within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of<br \/>\na copy of this order and on further condition that the petitioner shall pay a<br \/>\nsum of Rs.2000\/- towards cost to the respondent within the said time.<br \/>\nConsidering the long pendency of the case, the learned counsel for the<br \/>\nrespondent has made a request for a direction to the lower Court to dispose of<br \/>\nthe case expeditiously.  Considering the same, the lower Court is directed to<br \/>\ndispose of the case as expeditiously as possible.   It  is  made clear that in<br \/>\nthe event of the suit<br \/>\ngetting decreed in favour of the respondent, the respondent shall be entitled to<br \/>\nwithdraw the amount deposited in the lower Court to set aside the decree amount.<br \/>\nIn the event of the suit being dismissed by the lower Court, the petitioner<br \/>\nshall be entitled to withdraw the deposited amount.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t18. In the result, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed with above<br \/>\ndirections.  Consequently, connected M.P. is also closed.\n<\/p>\n<p>To<\/p>\n<p>The Subordinate Judge,<br \/>\nVirudhunagar.\n<\/p><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Madras High Court Madhana Gurusamy vs The Tamil Nadu Kadhi And Village on 5 April, 2007 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 05\/04\/2007 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.NAGAMUTHU C.R.P. NPD (MD) No.748 OF 2005 and C.M.P.(MD) NO.4643 OF 2005 and M.P.(MD) NO.1 OF 2006 Madhana Gurusamy .. Petitioner Vs The Tamil [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[8,13],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-97225","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-madras-high-court"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Madhana Gurusamy vs The Tamil Nadu Kadhi And Village on 5 April, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/madhana-gurusamy-vs-the-tamil-nadu-kadhi-and-village-on-5-april-2007\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Madhana Gurusamy vs The Tamil Nadu Kadhi And Village on 5 April, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/madhana-gurusamy-vs-the-tamil-nadu-kadhi-and-village-on-5-april-2007\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2007-04-04T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2019-03-23T22:38:29+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"9 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/madhana-gurusamy-vs-the-tamil-nadu-kadhi-and-village-on-5-april-2007#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/madhana-gurusamy-vs-the-tamil-nadu-kadhi-and-village-on-5-april-2007\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Madhana Gurusamy vs The Tamil Nadu Kadhi And Village on 5 April, 2007\",\"datePublished\":\"2007-04-04T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-03-23T22:38:29+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/madhana-gurusamy-vs-the-tamil-nadu-kadhi-and-village-on-5-april-2007\"},\"wordCount\":1776,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Madras High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/madhana-gurusamy-vs-the-tamil-nadu-kadhi-and-village-on-5-april-2007#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/madhana-gurusamy-vs-the-tamil-nadu-kadhi-and-village-on-5-april-2007\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/madhana-gurusamy-vs-the-tamil-nadu-kadhi-and-village-on-5-april-2007\",\"name\":\"Madhana Gurusamy vs The Tamil Nadu Kadhi And Village on 5 April, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2007-04-04T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-03-23T22:38:29+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/madhana-gurusamy-vs-the-tamil-nadu-kadhi-and-village-on-5-april-2007#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/madhana-gurusamy-vs-the-tamil-nadu-kadhi-and-village-on-5-april-2007\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/madhana-gurusamy-vs-the-tamil-nadu-kadhi-and-village-on-5-april-2007#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Madhana Gurusamy vs The Tamil Nadu Kadhi And Village on 5 April, 2007\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Madhana Gurusamy vs The Tamil Nadu Kadhi And Village on 5 April, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/madhana-gurusamy-vs-the-tamil-nadu-kadhi-and-village-on-5-april-2007","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Madhana Gurusamy vs The Tamil Nadu Kadhi And Village on 5 April, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/madhana-gurusamy-vs-the-tamil-nadu-kadhi-and-village-on-5-april-2007","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2007-04-04T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2019-03-23T22:38:29+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"9 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/madhana-gurusamy-vs-the-tamil-nadu-kadhi-and-village-on-5-april-2007#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/madhana-gurusamy-vs-the-tamil-nadu-kadhi-and-village-on-5-april-2007"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Madhana Gurusamy vs The Tamil Nadu Kadhi And Village on 5 April, 2007","datePublished":"2007-04-04T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2019-03-23T22:38:29+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/madhana-gurusamy-vs-the-tamil-nadu-kadhi-and-village-on-5-april-2007"},"wordCount":1776,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Madras High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/madhana-gurusamy-vs-the-tamil-nadu-kadhi-and-village-on-5-april-2007#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/madhana-gurusamy-vs-the-tamil-nadu-kadhi-and-village-on-5-april-2007","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/madhana-gurusamy-vs-the-tamil-nadu-kadhi-and-village-on-5-april-2007","name":"Madhana Gurusamy vs The Tamil Nadu Kadhi And Village on 5 April, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2007-04-04T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2019-03-23T22:38:29+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/madhana-gurusamy-vs-the-tamil-nadu-kadhi-and-village-on-5-april-2007#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/madhana-gurusamy-vs-the-tamil-nadu-kadhi-and-village-on-5-april-2007"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/madhana-gurusamy-vs-the-tamil-nadu-kadhi-and-village-on-5-april-2007#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Madhana Gurusamy vs The Tamil Nadu Kadhi And Village on 5 April, 2007"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/97225","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=97225"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/97225\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=97225"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=97225"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=97225"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}