Allowed

R. Anbuselvi v. R. Venkatraman

Madras HC7 Apr 2014CRP(MD)/752/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madurai Bench of Madras High Court directed the District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Vadipatti to dispose of O.S.No.405 of 2008 expeditiously, preferably within four months, invoking Article 227. The petition challenging the delay was allowed.

What did the court decide?

The learned District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Vadipatti is directed to dispose of O.S.No.405 of 2008 as expeditiously as possible, preferably within four months.

R. Anbuselvi Vs R. Venkatraman — Property and Title | Madras HC (2014)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 7.4.2014

¶4

CORAM :

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.MATHIVANAN

¶6

CRP(MD).No.752 of 2014

¶7

1.R.Anbuselvi 2.T.Chithra 3.Minor T.Rochana 4.Minor T.Thiagesan

¶8

Vs.

¶9

1.R.Venkatraman 2.P.T.Rajan 3.Paramasamy .. Respondents

¶10

Prayer : Petition filed under Article 227 of the constitution of India praying this Court to direct the learned District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Vadipatti to dispose of the suit in O.S.No.405 of 2008 pending on the file of the District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Vadipatti within a time frame that may be fixed by this Hon'ble Court.

¶11

For Petitioner : Mr.C.M.Arumugam

¶12

ORDER

¶13

Invoking the provisions of Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the revision petitioners, being the defendants in O.S.No.405 of 2008 on the file of learned District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Vadipatti, have approached this Court seeking a direction to the learned District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Vadipatti to dispose of the O.S.No.405 of 2008 within the specified time which may be fixed by this Court.

¶14

It is manifest from the records that O.S.No.405 of 2008 was filed for permanent injunction and the defendants filed written statement. The issues were framed on 1.7.2009 and the suit was periodically adjourned for more than twelve hearings.

¶15

According to Mr.C.M.Arumugam, learned counsel for the revision petitioners, though the defendants have extended their cooperation for disposal of the suit, the plaintiff has not taken steps to furnish the evidence on his side.

¶16

The submission made by the learned counsel for the revision https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ petitioner is considered. With this petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, this Court finds that notice to respondents does not require. Having regard to the related facts and circumstances, this Court feels that the relief sought for may be granted.

¶17

¶18

Accordingly, the learned District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Vadipatti is hereby directed to dispose of the O.S.No.405 of 2008 as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this Order, without loss of further time. The Civil Revision Petition is allowed with the above direction, however there is no order as to costs.

Sd/-

Assistant Registrar

/True Copy/

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶23

¶24

District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Vadipatti, Madurai District. +1cc to Mr. C.M.Arumugam,Advocate in SR.No. 21125 vks

¶25

TS/23.04.2014/2P-3c

¶26

CRP(MD).No.752 of 2014

¶27

7.4.2014

¶28

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

R. Anbuselvi v. R. Venkatraman

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

R. Anbuselvi v. R. Venkatraman

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

K. Ravichandran, Vs a. Panjali.

P.Robinson, S/O.Ponnumuthu Vs P.Vijaya Nesan

K.Sornam Vs N.Jeyaraman

Jaya Christhu Rani, Vs Govindaraj

S. Mathiselvan, Vs C.N.Elango

R. Anbuselvi Vs R. Venkatraman