{"id":98475,"date":"2002-04-09T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2002-04-08T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-muthalibu-vs-a-govindaswamy-mudaliar-on-9-april-2002"},"modified":"2014-12-29T09:06:37","modified_gmt":"2014-12-29T03:36:37","slug":"s-muthalibu-vs-a-govindaswamy-mudaliar-on-9-april-2002","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-muthalibu-vs-a-govindaswamy-mudaliar-on-9-april-2002","title":{"rendered":"S.Muthalibu vs A.Govindaswamy Mudaliar on 9 April, 2002"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Madras High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">S.Muthalibu vs A.Govindaswamy Mudaliar on 9 April, 2002<\/div>\n<pre>       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS\n\nDATED: 09\/04\/2002\n\nCORAM\n\nTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.D.DINAKARAN\n\nC.R.P.No.2890 of 2001\n\n\nS.Muthalibu                    ..                      Petitioner\n\n-Vs-\n\nA.Govindaswamy Mudaliar                ..                      Respondent\n\n\n        Revision against the order dated 30.4.2001 in C.M.A.  No.58 of 1999 on\nthe file of the learned I Additional Judge,  City  Civil  Court,  Chennai,  in\npursuance  of  the order dated 29.9.1997 in I.A.No.1675 of 1997 in O.S.No.6713\nof 1994 on the file of the V Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai.\n\n!For petitioner                         :       Mr.N.Damodaran\n\n^For respondent                         :       Mr.K.Mahesh\n\n\n:ORDER\n<\/pre>\n<p>        The revision petitioner is the second defendant in O.S.No.6713  of  19<br \/>\n94  on  the  file of the learned V Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai,<br \/>\nlaid  for  a  decree  and  judgment,  directing  the  revision  petitioner\/2nd<br \/>\ndefendant and the first defendant in the suit to pay a sum of Rs.23,000\/- with<br \/>\ninterest thereon at 18% per annum from the date of the plaint till the date of<br \/>\nrealisation.\n<\/p>\n<p>        2.   Even  though  notice was served on the revision petitioner\/second<br \/>\ndefendant, directing him to appear before the learned V Assistant Judge,  City<br \/>\nCivil  Court, Chennai on 21.10.1994, the matter was adjourned to 24.2.1995, on<br \/>\nwhich date, the revision petitioner was informed that all  the  cases  pending<br \/>\nbefore  the  learned  V  Assistant  Judge,  City  Civil  Court,  Chennai, were<br \/>\ntransferred to various Courts.  Therefore, even before he could verify the `A<br \/>\nDiary to appear before the concerned Court, viz., the  learned  VII  Assistant<br \/>\nJudge,  City  Civil  Court,  Chennai,  the  case  was  called and the revision<br \/>\npetitioner was set ex parte.  Hence, he filed an application to set aside  the<br \/>\norder dated 24 .2.1995, setting the revision petitioner ex parte; but the same<br \/>\nwas confirmed by order dated 25.4.1996 in C.R.P.No.671 of 1995.\n<\/p>\n<p>        3.   Thereafter,  an  ex  parte decree was passed against the revision<br \/>\npetitioner on 28.8.1996, which was also confirmed by order  dated  30.4.2  001<br \/>\nmade  in  C.M.A.No.58  of  1999 on the file of the learned I Additional Judge,<br \/>\nCity Civil Court, Chennai, on the ground that the order, setting the  revision<br \/>\npetitioner\/2nd  defendant  ex parte on 24.2.1995 had already been confirmed by<br \/>\nan order dated 25.4.1996.  But, admittedly, the ex parte decree  made  against<br \/>\nthe first defendant under Order IX Rule 13 on 28.8.1996 was set aside by order<br \/>\ndated 29.9.1997 in I.A.  No.1675 of 1997.  Hence, the above revision.\n<\/p>\n<p>        4.    Mr.S.V.Jayaraman,  learned  senior  counsel  appearing  for  the<br \/>\nrevision petitioner\/2nd defendant, placing reliance on the  first  proviso  to<br \/>\nOrder  IX  Rule  13(1),  C.P.C.,  contends  that  merely  setting the revision<br \/>\npetitioner\/2nd defendant ex parte by order dated 24.2.1995, made  under  Order<br \/>\nIX  Rule  7,  by  itself,  will not be a res judicata for setting aside the ex<br \/>\nparte decree passed against the revision petitioner on 28.8.1996, particularly<\/p>\n<p>in view of the first proviso  to  Order  IX  Rule  13(1).    In  this  regard,<br \/>\nMr.S.V.Jayaraman,  learned  senior counsel, places reliance on the decision of<br \/>\nthe Apex Court in ARJUN SINGH VS.  MOHINDRA KUMAR reported in AIR 1964 SC 993.\n<\/p>\n<p>        5.   Per  contra,  Mr.K.Mahesh,  learned  counsel  appearing  for  the<br \/>\nrespondent,  contends  that  in  view  of  the  order  dated 25.4.1996 made in<br \/>\nC.R.P.No.671 of 1995, refusing to interfere with the order dated  24.2.199  5,<br \/>\nsetting  the  revision  petitioner  ex  parte,  the revision petitioner is not<br \/>\nentitled to seek to set aside the ex parte decree dated 28.8.1 996, as held by<br \/>\norder dated 29.9.1997 in I.A.No.1675 of  1997,  by  the  learned  V  Assistant<br \/>\nJudge,  City Civil Court, Chennai, and confirmed by order dated 30.4.2001 made<br \/>\nin C.M.A.No.58 of 1999 on the file of the learned  I  Additional  Judge,  City<br \/>\nCivil Court, Chennai.\n<\/p>\n<p>        6.   I  have  given  careful  consideration to the submissions of both<br \/>\nsides.\n<\/p>\n<p>        7.  In this regard, I am obliged to refer Order IX Rule 7 and Order IX<br \/>\nRule 13(1), C.P.C., which read as follows:\n<\/p>\n<p>                Order IX Rule 7:\n<\/p>\n<p> Procedure where defendant appears on day of adjourned  hearing  and  assigns<br \/>\ngood  cause  for  previous non-appearance.&#8211; Where the Court has adjourned the<br \/>\nhearing of the suit ex parte, and the defendant, at or  before  such  hearing,<br \/>\nappears  and  assigns good cause for his previous non-appearance, he may, upon<br \/>\nsuch terms as the Court directs as to costs or otherwise, be heard  in  answer<br \/>\nto the suit as if he had appeared on the day fixed for his appearance.  <\/p>\n<p>                Order IX Rule 13(1):\n<\/p>\n<p>  Setting  aside  decree ex parte against defendant.&#8211; In any case in which a<br \/>\ndecree is passed ex parte against a defendant, he may apply to  the  Court  by<br \/>\nwhich  the decree was passed for an order to set it aside; and if he satisfies<br \/>\nthe Court that the summons was not duly served, or that he  was  prevented  by<br \/>\nany  sufficient  cause from appearing when the suit was called on for hearing,<br \/>\nthe Court shall make an order setting aside the decree  as  against  him  upon<br \/>\nsuch  terms as to costs, payment into Court or otherwise as it thinks fit, and<br \/>\nshall appoint a day for proceeding with the suit:\n<\/p>\n<p>        Provided that where the decree is of such a nature that it  cannot  be<br \/>\nset aside as against such defendant only it may be set aside as against all or<br \/>\nany of the other defendants also:(emphasis supplied)<\/p>\n<p>                Provided further that no Court shall set aside a decree passed<br \/>\nex  parte  merely  on  the  ground  that there has been an irregularity in the<br \/>\nservice of summons, if it be satisfied that the defendant had  notice  of  the<br \/>\ndate of hearing in sufficient time to appear and answer the plaintiffs claim.\n<\/p>\n<p>        Explanation&#8211;  Where  there has been an appeal against a decree passed<br \/>\nex parte under this rule, and the appeal has been disposed of  on  any  ground<br \/>\nother  than  the  ground  that  the  appellant  has  withdrawn  the appeal, no<br \/>\napplication shall lie under this rule for setting aside that ex parte decree.\n<\/p>\n<p>(2) The provisions of Section 5 of the Indian Limitation  Act,  19  08,  shall<br \/>\napply to applications under sub-rule (1).   (emphasis supplied)<\/p>\n<p>        8.  The Apex Court, in ARJUN SINGH VS.  MOHINDRA KUMAR reported in AIR<br \/>\n1964  SC 993, while interpreting Section 11, Order IX Rule 7 and Order IX Rule<br \/>\n13, C.P.C., has held as follows:\n<\/p>\n<p> Scope of the principle of res judicata is not confined to what is  contained<br \/>\nin S.11  but  is of more general application.  Again, res judicata could be as<br \/>\nmuch applicable to different stages of the same suit as to findings on  issues<br \/>\nin different  suits.    If  the  court  which  rendered the first decision was<br \/>\ncompetent to entertain  the  suit  or  other  proceeding,  and  had  therefore<br \/>\ncompetency  to  decide  the  issue  or  matter,  the circumstance that it is a<br \/>\ntribunal of exclusive jurisdiction or one from whose decision  no  appeal  lay<br \/>\nwould  not  by  themselves  negative  the finding on the issue by it being res<br \/>\njudicata in later proceedings.  Where the principle of res judicata is invoked<br \/>\nin the case of the different stages of  proceedings  in  the  same  suit,  the<br \/>\nnature  of  the proceedings, the scope of the enquiry which the adjectival law<br \/>\nprovides for the decision being reached, as well as  the  specific  provisions<br \/>\nmade  on  matters touching such decision are some of the material and relevant<br \/>\nfactors to be considered before the principle is held applicable.\n<\/p>\n<p>Interlocutory  orders  are  of  various  kinds;  some  like  orders  of  stay,<br \/>\ninjunction  or  receiver  are  designed to preserve the status quo pending the<br \/>\nlitigation and to ensure that the parties  might  not  be  prejudiced  by  the<br \/>\nnormal delay  which  the  proceedings  before the court usually take.  They do<br \/>\nnot, in that sense, decide in any manner the  merits  of  the  controversy  in<br \/>\nissue in  the suit and do not, of course, put an end to it even in part.  Such<br \/>\norders are  certainly  capable  of  being  altered  or  varied  by  subsequent<br \/>\napplications  for  the same relief, though normally only on proof of new facts<br \/>\nor new situations which subsequently emerge.  As they do not impinge upon  the<br \/>\nlegal  rights  of parties to the litigation the principle of res judicata does<br \/>\nnot apply to  the  findings  on  which  these  orders  are  based,  though  if<br \/>\napplications  were  made  for relief on the same basis after the same has once<br \/>\nbeen disposed of, the court would be justified in rejecting  the  same  as  an<br \/>\nabuse of  the  process  of  court.    There  are  other  orders which are also<br \/>\ninterlocutory, but would fall into a different category.  The difference  from<br \/>\nthe  ones  just now referred to lies in the fact that they are not directed to<br \/>\nmaintaining the status quo, or to preserve  the  property  pending  the  final<br \/>\nadjudication,  but  are  designed  to  ensure  the  just,  smooth, orderly and<br \/>\nexpeditious disposal of the suit.  They are interlocutory in  the  sence  that<br \/>\nthey  do not decide any matter in issue arising in the suit, nor put an end to<br \/>\nthe litigation.  The case of an application under O.IX, R.7 Civil P.C.   would<br \/>\nbe an  illustration of this type.  If an application made under the provisions<br \/>\nof that rule is dismissed and an appeal were filed against the decree  in  the<br \/>\nsuit  in  which  such  application  were  made, there can be no doubt that the<br \/>\npropriety of the order rejecting the  reopening  of  the  proceeding  and  the<br \/>\nrefusal  to  relegate  the party to an earlier stage might be canvassed in the<br \/>\nappeal and dealt with by the appellate Court.  In that sense, the  refusal  of<br \/>\nthe  court  to  permit  the  defendant to set the clock back does not attain<br \/>\nfinality.  But though the same court is not finally bound  by  that  order  at<br \/>\nlater  stages,  so as to preclude its being reconsidered, and even if the rule<br \/>\nof res judicata does not apply it would not follow that  on  every  subsequent<br \/>\nday on which the suit stands adjourned for further hearing, the petition could<br \/>\nbe repeated  and  fresh  orders  sought  on the basis of identical facts.  The<br \/>\nprinciple that repeated applications based on the same facts and  seeking  the<br \/>\nsame  reliefs  might  be  disallowed by the court does not however necessarily<br \/>\nrest on the principle of res  judicata.    Thus  if  an  application  for  the<br \/>\nadjournment  of  a  suit  is  rejected,  a subsequent application for the same<br \/>\npurpose even if based on the same facts, is not barred on the  application  of<br \/>\nany  rule of res judicata, but would be rejected for the same grounds on which<br \/>\nthe original  application  was  refused.    The   principle   underlying   the<br \/>\ndistinction  between  the  rule  of res judicata and a rejection on the ground<br \/>\nthat no new facts have been adduced to justify a different order is vital.  If<br \/>\nthe principle of res judicata is applicable to the decision  on  a  particular<br \/>\nissue of fact, even if fresh facts were placed before the Court, the bar would<br \/>\ncontinue  to  operate and preclude a fresh investigation of the issue, whereas<br \/>\nin the other case, on proof of fresh facts, the court would be competent,  nay<br \/>\nwould be bound to take those into account and make an order conformably to the<br \/>\nfacts freshly brought before the court.  <\/p>\n<p>                9.   Therefore,  it  is  well  settled, as held in Arjun Singh<br \/>\ncase, referred supra that in its essence order under O.9 R.7  is  directed  to<br \/>\nensure   the  orderly  conduct  of  the  proceedings  by  penalising  improper<br \/>\ndilatoriness calculated merely to prolong the litigation.  It does not put  an<br \/>\nend  to  the  litigation nor does it involve the determination of any issue in<br \/>\ncontroversy in the suit.  Besides, it is obvious that the proceeding is  of  a<br \/>\nvery  summary nature and this is evident from the fact that as contrasted with<br \/>\nO.IX Rule 9 or O.IX R.16, no appeal is provided against action  of  the  Court<br \/>\nunder O.IX, R.7, refusing to set back the clock.  It is, therefore, manifest<br \/>\nthat  the  Code  proceeds  upon  the  view  not  imparting any finality to the<br \/>\ndetermination of any issues  of  fact  on  which  courts  action  under  that<br \/>\nprovision  is  based,  and  thus,  a decision or direction in an interlocutory<br \/>\nproceeding of the type provided for by O.IX, R.7 is not of the kind which  can<br \/>\noperate  as  res  judicata  so  as  to  bar  the  hearing  on the merits of an<br \/>\napplication under O.IX R.13.   The  latter  is  a  specific  statutory  remedy<br \/>\nprovided  by the Code for the setting aside of ex parte decrees, and it is not<br \/>\nwithout significance that under O.43 R.1(d) an appeal lies not against  orders<br \/>\nsetting  aside  a  decree passed ex parte but against orders rejecting such an<br \/>\napplication, unmistakeably pointing to the  policy  of  the  Code  being  that<br \/>\nsubject  to securing due diligence on the part of the parties to the suit, the<br \/>\nCode as far as possible makes provision for decisions in suits after a hearing<br \/>\nafforded to the parties.\n<\/p>\n<p>        10.  That apart, in the instant case, admittedly, the ex parte  decree<br \/>\nmade  against  the  first  defendant  on 28.8.1996 had been set aside by order<br \/>\ndated 29.9.1997 in I.A.No.1675 of 1997.  If that  be  so,  as  per  the  first<br \/>\nproviso  to  order  IX  Rule  13(1), the ex parte decree dated 2 8.8.1996 made<br \/>\nagainst the first defendant as well as the revision  petitioner\/2nd  defendant<br \/>\ncannot  be set aside as against the first defendant alone and it has to be set<br \/>\naside against all or any other  defendants  also.    Therefore,  the  specific<br \/>\nprovision,  viz., the first proviso to Order IX Rule 13(1) comes to the aid of<br \/>\nthe revision petitioner to set aside the ex parte decree dated 28.8.1996,  and<br \/>\ntherefore, the ex parte decree dated 28.8.1996 is set aside, and consequently,<br \/>\nthe learned I Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai, is directed to take<br \/>\nup  the  written  statement  filed by the revision petitioner\/2nd defendant on<br \/>\nfile, frame the issues, try the suit and dispose of the same on merits  within<br \/>\nsix months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.\n<\/p>\n<p>        The revision is ordered accordingly.  No costs.  C.M.P.No.15438 of  20<br \/>\n01 is closed.\n<\/p>\n<p>Index:  Yes<br \/>\nInternet:  Yes<\/p>\n<p>ksv<\/p>\n<p>                While  passing the final order dated 09.04.2002, setting aside<br \/>\nthe ex-parte decree dated 28.08.1996 in the  above  Civil  Revision  Petition,<br \/>\nthis  Court  directed  the  learned  First Additional Judge, City Civil Court,<br \/>\nChennai to take up the written statement filed by the  revision  petitioner  \/<br \/>\nsecond  defendant  on  file, frame the issues, try the suit and dispose of the<br \/>\nsame on merits within six months from the date of receipt of a  copy  of  this<br \/>\norder, instead of learned Fifth Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai.\n<\/p>\n<p>                2.   Hence,  the matter is posted today for being mentioned to<br \/>\nrectify the factual mistake crept in the above order.\n<\/p>\n<p>                3.  There is no objection on behalf of the respondents.\n<\/p>\n<p>                4.  Hence, paragraph 10  of  the  order  dated  09.04.2002  is<br \/>\nmodified  and &#8220;learned I Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai&#8221; shall be<br \/>\nread as &#8220;learned Fifth Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai&#8221;.\n<\/p>\n<p>                5.  Registry is directed to carry out the mistake and issue  a<br \/>\nfresh  order,  marking  a copy to the Fifth Assistant Judge, City Civil Court,<br \/>\nChennai, within a period of one week from today.\n<\/p>\n<pre>Dpn\/-                                           11.03.2004\n\n\n\n\n<\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Madras High Court S.Muthalibu vs A.Govindaswamy Mudaliar on 9 April, 2002 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 09\/04\/2002 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.D.DINAKARAN C.R.P.No.2890 of 2001 S.Muthalibu .. Petitioner -Vs- A.Govindaswamy Mudaliar .. Respondent Revision against the order dated 30.4.2001 in C.M.A. No.58 of 1999 on the file of the learned I [&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-98475","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>S.Muthalibu vs A.Govindaswamy Mudaliar on 9 April, 2002 - 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\/s-muthalibu-vs-a-govindaswamy-mudaliar-on-9-april-2002\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"S.Muthalibu vs A.Govindaswamy Mudaliar on 9 April, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-muthalibu-vs-a-govindaswamy-mudaliar-on-9-april-2002\" \/>\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=\"2002-04-08T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2014-12-29T03:36:37+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=\"12 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/s-muthalibu-vs-a-govindaswamy-mudaliar-on-9-april-2002#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/s-muthalibu-vs-a-govindaswamy-mudaliar-on-9-april-2002\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"S.Muthalibu vs A.Govindaswamy Mudaliar on 9 April, 2002\",\"datePublished\":\"2002-04-08T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-12-29T03:36:37+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/s-muthalibu-vs-a-govindaswamy-mudaliar-on-9-april-2002\"},\"wordCount\":2396,\"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\\\/s-muthalibu-vs-a-govindaswamy-mudaliar-on-9-april-2002#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/s-muthalibu-vs-a-govindaswamy-mudaliar-on-9-april-2002\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/s-muthalibu-vs-a-govindaswamy-mudaliar-on-9-april-2002\",\"name\":\"S.Muthalibu vs A.Govindaswamy Mudaliar on 9 April, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2002-04-08T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-12-29T03:36:37+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/s-muthalibu-vs-a-govindaswamy-mudaliar-on-9-april-2002#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/s-muthalibu-vs-a-govindaswamy-mudaliar-on-9-april-2002\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/s-muthalibu-vs-a-govindaswamy-mudaliar-on-9-april-2002#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"S.Muthalibu vs A.Govindaswamy Mudaliar on 9 April, 2002\"}]},{\"@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":"S.Muthalibu vs A.Govindaswamy Mudaliar on 9 April, 2002 - 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\/s-muthalibu-vs-a-govindaswamy-mudaliar-on-9-april-2002","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"S.Muthalibu vs A.Govindaswamy Mudaliar on 9 April, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-muthalibu-vs-a-govindaswamy-mudaliar-on-9-april-2002","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2002-04-08T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2014-12-29T03:36:37+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":"12 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-muthalibu-vs-a-govindaswamy-mudaliar-on-9-april-2002#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-muthalibu-vs-a-govindaswamy-mudaliar-on-9-april-2002"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"S.Muthalibu vs A.Govindaswamy Mudaliar on 9 April, 2002","datePublished":"2002-04-08T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2014-12-29T03:36:37+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-muthalibu-vs-a-govindaswamy-mudaliar-on-9-april-2002"},"wordCount":2396,"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\/s-muthalibu-vs-a-govindaswamy-mudaliar-on-9-april-2002#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-muthalibu-vs-a-govindaswamy-mudaliar-on-9-april-2002","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-muthalibu-vs-a-govindaswamy-mudaliar-on-9-april-2002","name":"S.Muthalibu vs A.Govindaswamy Mudaliar on 9 April, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2002-04-08T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2014-12-29T03:36:37+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-muthalibu-vs-a-govindaswamy-mudaliar-on-9-april-2002#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-muthalibu-vs-a-govindaswamy-mudaliar-on-9-april-2002"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-muthalibu-vs-a-govindaswamy-mudaliar-on-9-april-2002#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"S.Muthalibu vs A.Govindaswamy Mudaliar on 9 April, 2002"}]},{"@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\/98475","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=98475"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/98475\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=98475"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=98475"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=98475"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}