Dismissed

H.a.Mohamed Ali, v. S.Selvaraj

Madras HC10 Apr 2014CRP(MD)/652/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court disposed of the civil revision petition reinstating the suit dispute over a property. The court acted on the petitioner's counsel's endorsement that the respondent restricts his claim to the suit B schedule measuring 3,815 sq.ft., relinquishing the rest and schedule A. The court directed the trial court to resolve the suit within four months. The revision

What did the court decide?

The revision petition disposed of based on respondent's endorsement restricting claim to Schedule B; Principal District Judge directed to dispose suit within four months. Revision petitioners at liber

H.a.Mohamed Ali, Vs S.Selvaraj — Specific Performance | Madras HC (2014)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 10.04.2014

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE T.MATHIVANAN C.R.P.(PD).MD.No.652 of 2014

¶6

1.H.A.Mohamed Ali 2.R.Sundresan Rep. By Power Agent H.A.Mohamed Ali, Dindigul

¶7

..Petitioners/Respondents/Defendants

¶8

Vs.

¶9

S.Selvaraj .. Respondent/Petitioner/Plaintiff

¶10

PRAYER: Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to set aside the order and decree made in I.A.No.16 of 2014, dated 27.02.2014 in O.S.No.85 of 2011 on the file of the learned Principal District Court, Dindigul, Dindigul District.

¶11

For Petitioners :Mr.G.Gomathi Sankar

¶12

For respondent :Mr.G.R.Swaminathan for

¶13

Mr.D.Raj Kumar

¶14

O R D E R

¶15

This memorandum of Civil Revision has been directed against the fair and decretal order passed in I.A.No.16 of 2014, dated 27.02.2014 in O.S.No.85 of 2011 on the file of the learned Principal District Court, Dindigul, Dindigul District.

¶16

2.The revision petitioners herein are the defendants in the suit in O.S.No.85 of 2011, whereas the respondent is the plaintiff. It is manifested from the records that the respondent has filed a suit in O.S.No.85 of 2011 as against the revision petitioners on the file of the learned Principal District Court, Dindigul, seeking the relief of specific performance. The plaint schedule property contains two schedules viz. Schedule A and Schedule B. The suit B schedule is the part and parcel of the property specified in A schedule. The suit property is comprised in S.No.20/4 measuring 6814 sq.ft. Now, during the pendency of the suit, the respondent/plaintiff has filed an application in I.A.No.16 of 2014, under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Civil Procedure Code, to amend the plaint to restrict his claim to the extent of 3,815/- sq.ft alone in B schedule. But this was resisted by the revision petitioners and despite their contest, the petition was allowed. Against which, the present revision is filed by the revision petitioners, who are the defendants in the suit.

¶17

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3.When the matter is taken up for hearing, Mr.G.R.Swaminathan, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent has made an endorsement stating that the respondent/plaintiff confines his suit claim to suit B schedule, which is an extent of 3815 sq.ft (Three thousand eight hundred and fifteen square feet) and gives up his claim on the remaining

¶18

¶19

extent of 2999 sq.ft. (Two thousand nine hundred and ninety nine square feet). He has also endorsed that the respondent restricts his claim to B schedule, which is comprised in S.No.20/5 and relinquishes his claim in respect of suit A schedule, which is comprised in S.No.20/4.

¶20

4.The learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioners has conceded for this and he has also agreed that the revision petition can be disposed of, on the basis of the endorsement made by the learned counsel for the respondent.

¶21

5.The endorsement made by Mr.G.R.Swaminathan,the learned counsel, on behalf of the respondent/plaintiff is recorded.

¶22

6.This Civil Revision Petition is disposed of, on the endorsement made on behalf of the respondent stating that the respondent/plaintiff confines his claim in suit B schedule, which is measuring 3815 sq.ft (Three thousand eight hundred and fifteen square feet) and he gives up his claim in respect of 2999 sq.ft. (Two thousand nine hundred and ninety nine square feet) and further the respondent restricts his claim only in respect of B schedule, which is comprised in S.No.20/5 and he relinquishes his claim in respect of suit A schedule, which is comprised S.No.20/4. The revision petitioners are at liberty to file additional written statement, subject to the provisions of Order 8 Rule 9 of the Civil Procedure Code. The learned Principal District Judge, Dindigul is also directed to dispose of the suit in O.S.No.85 of 2011, within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs. Consequently, connected M.P.(md).No.1 of 2014 is closed.

Sd/-

Assistant Registrar

/True Copy/

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶27

¶28

The Principal District Judge, Dindigul, Dindigul District.

¶29

+1cc to Mr.D.Raj Kumar,Advocate in SR.No. 22437

¶30

+1cc to Mr. G.Gomathi sankar,Advocate in SR.No. 22775 TS/22.04.2014/2P-4c

¶31

C.R.P.(PD).MD.NO.652 of 2014

¶32

10.04.2014

¶33

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

H.a.Mohamed Ali, v. S.Selvaraj

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

H.a.Mohamed Ali, v. S.Selvaraj

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

R.Prakash, Vs Sri Lakshmi Narashima Swamy

A.T.Jain Sharely Vs R.Evalin Latha

C.Selvakumar, Vs Flowrence Selvi

G. Savarimuthu Vs Sudarali

Jeinulabudeen, Vs Sheik Abdul Rahman

S.Varatharaja Boopathi Vs Anantha Radhabai