Allowed

Kanthilal v. Pushpadevi

Madras HC9 Jul 2014CRP/2421/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a revision petition, the Madras High Court directed the First Additional City Civil Court, Chennai, to dispose of suit 13097 of 2010 involving specific performance and delivery of possession within six months, after a forensic order remained unimplemented for over a year.

What did the court decide?

The lower Court is directed to dispose of O.S.No.13097 of 2010 within six months of receipt of the order.

Kanthilal Vs Pushpadevi — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Madras HC (2014)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED:09.07.2014

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE R.MALA

¶6

CRP (PD) No.2421 of 2014

Kanthilal

.. Petitioner

Vs.

Pushpadevi .. Respondent

¶11

Prayer : Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, seeking for a direction to the learned First Additional City Civil Court, Chennai to speedily dispose of O.S.No.13097 of 2010 pending on the file of the learned First Additional City Civil Court, Chennai, in accordance with law and on merits within a stipulated time.

¶12

For Petitioner : Mr.SU.Srinivasan

¶13

ORDER

¶14

The revision petitioner herein has filed this Civil Revision Petition seeking a direction to the learned First Additional City Civil Court, Chennai to dispose of O.S.No.13097 of 2010 pending on its file, on merits and in accordance with law, within the stipulated time.

¶15

The learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner submitted that the revision petitioner herein as plaintiff filed a suit in O.S.No.53 of 2010, for specific performance and for delivery of possession of the suit property, before the Principal District Judge, Chengalpattu, which was transferred to the First

¶16

¶17

Additional City Civil Court, Chennai and renumbered as O.S.No.13097 of 2010. Since the plaintiff/revision petitioner herein filed the suit for specific performance, the defendant/respondent herein raised a plea that the alleged sale agreement is a forged document. Then, the defendant/respondent herein also filed an application to send the document to the Forensic Department for comparing the signatures in the disputed document as well as the admitted document, which was allowed. But, the said order was not given effect to by the Court. Since the suit is pending from 2010, the plaintiff/revision petitioner herein has come forward with this Civil Revision Petition seeking early disposal of the suit and the connected applications.

¶18

Considering the limited prayer sought for in this Civil Revision Petition, notice to the respondent is dispensed with.

¶19

I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner and perused the typed set of papers.

¶20

The revision petitioner as plaintiff filed the suit in O.S.No.53 of 2010 on the file of the Principal District Judge, Chengalpattu, which was subsequently transferred to the First Additional City Civil Court, Chennai and renumbered as O.S.No.13097 of 2010. The defendant/respondent herein filed an application to send the disputed sale agreement to the Forensic Department for comparison of

¶21

¶22

the signature in the document, which was allowed on 24.07.2012, but, the documents were not sent to the Forensic Department.

¶23

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned First Additional City Civil Court, Chennai, is directed to dispose of the suit in O.S.No.13097 of 2010 pending on its file, within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order after giving fair opportunities to both sides and complying with the order passed in I.A.No.8674 of 2012 in I.A.No.16148 of 2011 in O.S.No.13097 of 2010.

¶24

With the above direction, this Civil Revision Petition is disposed of.

No costs.

09.07.2014

ogy

The Principal District Munsif Court, Alandur.

R.MALA,J.

ogy

CRP (PD) No.2421 of 2014

¶34

09.07.2014

Kanthilal v. Pushpadevi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kanthilal v. Pushpadevi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Nallammal Vs Palaniammal

Smt.Radhammal Vs Mr. Baskar

Papamma Vs Venkatamma

Suseela Vs M.F.Rukshana Begam

Krishnamoorthy Vs P.K.Ravichandran

F.Irudayaraj Vs Mrs.I.Epsiba