Madras High Court directed the District Judge to dispose of the pending interlocutory application I.A.No.65 of 2013 in the civil revision matter within a stipulated time frame to prevent delay.
Direction to the District Judge to dispose of I.A.No.65 of 2013 by the end of April 2014 without loss of further time.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED 09.04.2014
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.MATHIVANAN
C.R.P(MD)No.816 of 2014 (PD)
C.Selvakumar .. Petitioner/Petitioner/Petitioner
Vs.
1.Flowerence Selvi 2.Dullas Isac Daya .. Respondents/Respondents/Respondents
PRAYER : Civil Revision Petition is filed, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, to direct the District Judge, Kanyakumari at Nagercoil to dispose of I.A.No.65 of 2013 in S.M.O.P.No.368 of 2010 on his file within a stipulated time to be fixed by this Court, on merits and in accordance with law.
For Petitioners : Mr.G.Ramanathan
ORDER
The petitioner is seeking a direction to the learned District Judge, Kanyakumari at Nagercoil to dispose of I.A.No.65 of 2013 in S.M.O.P.No.368 of 2013 as expeditiously as possible, preferably within the time frame as may be fixed by this Court.
3.It is manifested from the records that the revision petitioner has filed a petition in S.M.O.P.No.368 of 2010 on the file of the learned District Judge, Kanyakumari at Nagercoil, as against the respondents, under Section 27-1-(a) of the Special Marriages Act, 1954, seeking a decree for dissolving the marriage solemnized between the revision petitioner and the respondent No.1 and also sought a direction against respondent No.2 to pay sufficient damages to the petitioner/husband for the said adultery. While the above S.M.O.P.No.368 of 2010 is pending, the revision petitioner has also taken out an another application in I.A.63 of 2013, claiming the relief of direction so as to enable https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ the petitioner to have the company of his children on specified occasions and that application was also contested by the
2
respondent No.1 and the same is also pending before the same Court.
4.Mr.G.Ramanathan, learned counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that the learned District Judge failed to see that the I.A., was filed on 16.04.2013 and the same is pending for one year before the same Court. It is also submitted that the learned District Judge ought to have seen that the petitioner is present on every hearing dates and the hearing of the case had been postponed at the request of respondents. The District Judge ought to have curtailed the tactics adopted by the respondents in dragging the proceedings. Under these circumstances, the petitioner is seeking the relief as stated above.
5.This Court has considered the submissions made by Mr.G.Ramanathan, learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the grounds of revision. It is expedient to issue a direction as requested by the petitioner. Accordingly, the revision petition is allowed and the learned District Judge, Kanyakumari at Nagercoil is directed to dispose of the Interlocutory application in I.A.No.65 of 2010 by the end of April 2014, without loss of further time. There is no order as to costs.
Sd/-
Assistant Registrar(Per.Admn.)
/True Copy/
Sub-Assistant Registrar
To
The District Judge, Kanyakumari at Nagercoil
+1cc to Mr.G.Ramanathan, Advocate, in SR. No.22112/14.
C.R.P(MD)No.816 of 2014(PD) 09.04.2014
am
msm 16.04.2014 p2/3c
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the District Judge shall be directed to dispose of the pending interlocutory application within a stipulated time.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
C.Selvakumar
Flowerence Selvi
Dullas Isac Daya
T.MATHIVANAN
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
