Allowed

R.Mamundi v. N.Kamaraj

Madras HC3 Apr 2014CRP(MD)/590/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a civil revision petition under Article 227, the Madras High Court directed the District Judge, Dindigul, to expedite pending appeal proceedings and interlocutory applications, fixing a timeline of one month for the interlocutory matter and three months for the appeals.

What did the court decide?

Direction to District Judge, Dindigul to dispose of I.A.No.77 of 2012 within one month and both appeals within three months thereafter. No costs.

R.Mamundi Vs N.Kamaraj — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Madras HC (2014)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED 03.04.2014

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.MATHIVANAN

¶6

C.R.P(MD)No.590 of 2014(PD)

¶7

R.Mamundi

¶8

.. Revision Petitioner/Plaintiff

¶9

Vs.

¶10

1.N.Kamaraj 2.Tmt.Meenambal 3.C.Devaraj 4.C.Ganesan .. Respondents/Defendants

¶11

PRAYER: Civil Revision Petition is filed, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, seeking to expedite the Appeal proceedings and fix a stipulated time which this Hon'ble Court may deem reasonable to dispose the said A.S.No.44/2010 along with all proceedings incidental thereto on the file of the learned District Judge, Dindigul.

¶12

For Petitioner : Mr.R.Chandrasekar

¶13

ORDER

¶14

Invoking the provisions of Article 227 of Constitution of India, this memorandum of civil revision has been filed by the petitioner, who is the first respondent in appeal in A.S.No.44 of 2010 and the plaintiff in suit O.S.No.208 of 2005 seeking a direction to the learned District Judge, Dindigul to dispose of the appeal in A.S.No.44 of 2010 as expeditiously as possible preferably within a time frame.

¶15

2.When the matter was taken up for hearing on 25.03.2014, it was brought to the notice of this Court that an un-numbered appeal is also pending on the file of the learned Principal District Judge, Dindigul and an interlocutory application in I.A.No.77 of 2012 also pending to condone the delay of 600 days in filing the appeal. It is also brought to the notice of this Court that the judgments in O.S.No.208 of 2005 as well as the suit in O.S.No.344 of 2004 have been pronounced in a common judgment on 30.04.2004 decreeing the suit in O.No.208 of 2005 filed by the petitioner and dismissing the suit in O.S.No.344 of 2004 filed by the first respondent herein. An appeal in A.S.No.44 of 2010 has been preferred by the first respondent herein against the judgment passed in O.S.No.208 of 2005 and another appeal seems to have been filed as against the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ judgment in O.S.No.344 of 2004 and that is pending un-numbered as there is a delay of 600 days in filing the appeal and that the application for condoning the delay was numbered as I.A.No.77 of 2012 and is still pending for want of service on the first respondent.

¶16

¶17

3.In this connection, a remark was directed to be called for from the learned Principal District Judge, Dindigul with reference to the pendency of I.A.No.77 of 2012 in the un-numbered appeal. In pursuant to the direction, the learned Principal District Judge, Dindigul has also submitted his remark dated 27.03.2014. From the remark submitted by the learned Principal District Judge, Dindigul, this Court is able to understand that I.A.No.77 of 2012 is still pending for want of batta in respect of R1. Therefore, the unnumbered appeal is not likely to be taken on file in the near future and in these circumstances, the revision petitioner being the plaintiff in the suit in O.S.No.208 of 2005 and the first respondent in appeal A.S.No.44 of 2010, has come forward with this revision seeking a direction as stated above.

¶18

4.Heard Mr.R.Chandrasekar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner.

¶19

5.Perused the grounds of the memorandum of revision along with other materials available on record.

¶20

6.Being satisfied with the reasons, this Court finds that the direction sought for to dispose of the appeal in A.S.No.44 of 2010 may be granted. Accordingly, this revision petition is allowed and the learned District Judge, Dindigul is directed to dispose of the I.A.No.77 of 2012 as expeditiously as possible preferably within a month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. If the interlocutory application in I.A.No.77 of 2012 is allowed on merit and the un-numbered appeal is taken up for hearing, the learned District Judge, Dindigul shall dispose both the appeals viz., A.S.No.44 of 2010 and the other appeal within a period of three months thereafter without loss of further time. No costs.

Sd/-

Assistant Registrar

/True Copy/

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶25

¶26

The District Court, Dindigul.

¶27

+1cc to Mr.R.Chandrasekar,Advocate in SR.No. 20661 TS/16.04.2014/2P-3c

¶28

C.R.P(MD)No.590 of 2014

¶29

03.04.2014

¶30

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

R.Mamundi v. N.Kamaraj

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

R.Mamundi v. N.Kamaraj

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

P.Asokan,S/O.Late.Paramasivam, Vs Pandian Hospital & Medical

S.Arumugapandi, Vs S.Vanniarajan @ Vanniaraja

Madurai Kunniya Vagaiyara Vs K.R.Janakiram

L.Prema Vs Devadoss

N. Ashish Karwa, Vs a.Pinky Sureka

M.Munavvara, Vs a.Amanullah