Allowed

R. Anbuselvi v. R. Venkatraman

Madras HC7 Apr 2014CRP(MD)/753/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Court allowed a revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, directing the learned District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Vadipatti, to dispose of O.S.No.41 of 2011 expeditiously within four months without loss of further time.

What did the court decide?

Directed the District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Vadipatti to dispose of O.S.No.41 of 2011 within four months from the date of receipt of the order.

R. Anbuselvi Vs R. Venkatraman — Civil Procedure and Limitation | 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.753 of 2014

¶7

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

¶8

Vs.

¶9

1.R.Venkatraman 2.T.Tharanilatha 3.A.Jeyanthi 4.V.Shanthi 5.V.Renganayaki 6.V.Uma 7.G.Varadharajan .. 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.41 of 2011 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 2 to 5 in O.S.No.41 of 2011 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.41 of 2011 within the specified time which may be fixed by this Court.

¶14

It is manifest from the records that O.S.No.41 of 2011 was filed for declaration and the defendants filed written statement. The issues were framed on 21.1.2014 and the suit was periodically adjourned for many hearings.

¶15

According to Mr.C.M.Arumugam, learned counsel for the revision petitioners, though the defendants 2 to 5 have extended their cooperation for disposal of the suit, the plaintiffs have not taken steps to furnish the evidence on their side.

¶16

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 4. The submission made by the learned counsel for the revision 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.41 of 2011 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

The District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Vadipatti, Madurai District. +1cc to Mr.C.M.Arumugam,Advocate in SR.No. 21124 vks TS/23.04.2014/2P-3c

¶25

CRP(MD).No.753 of 2014

¶26

7.4.2014

¶27

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