Allowed

Chandran, v. a.R.Sngusamy

Madras HC23 Apr 2014CRP(MD)/919/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court exercised jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution to direct the Principal Sub Judge, Madurai, to dispose of an interlocutory application in the main suit within two weeks due to unnecessary periodical adjournments.

What did the court decide?

Directed the Principal Sub Judge, Madurai, to dispose of I.A. No. 201 of 2013 within two weeks from the date of receipt of this order.

Chandran, Vs a.R.Sngusamy — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Madras HC (2014)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED 23.04.2014

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.MATHIVANAN

¶6

C.R.P(MD)No.919 of 2014

1.Chandran

2.Krishnakumar

3.Thirupathi

.. Petitioners/Petitioners/Plaintiffs

¶11

Vs.

¶12

1.A.R.Angusamy 2.A.Thirupathy 3.A.R.Logathan 4.A.R.Balakrishnan .. Respondents/Respondents/Defendants

¶13

PRAYER: Civil Revision Petition is filed, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, seeking a direction to the learned Principal Sub Court, Madurai to dispose of I.A.No.201 of 2013 in O.S.No.206 of 2013 as expeditiously as possible preferably within a time which may be fixed by this Court.

¶14

For Petitioners : Mr.R.G.Shankar Ganesh

¶15

ORDER

¶16

Invoking the provisions of Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have approached this Court with this Civil Revision Petition, seeking a direction to the learned Principal Sub Judge, Madurai to dispose of I.A.No.201 of 2013 in O.S.No.206 of 2013 as expeditiously as possible preferably within a time, which may be fixed by this Court.

¶17

Heard Mr.R.G.Shankar Ganesh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and perused the averments of the grounds of the revision petition.

¶18

No notice is necessary to the respondents as this Court intend to direct the trial Court to dispose of the petition at the earliest and it would not cause any prejudice to the respondents.

¶19

It appears that the revision petitioners herein, who are the plaintiffs, had filed an Interlocutory Application and the same had been unnecessarily periodically adjourned without assigning any valid reason and therefore, the petitioners being the plaintiffs have approached this Court by way of Civil Revision Petition.

¶20

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 5. Having been taken into consideration of the related facts and circumstances, this Court is of view that in the interest of Justice it may be expedient to issue a direction to the trial Court. Accordingly,

¶21

¶22

this Civil Revision Petition is allowed. The learned Principal Sub Judge, Madurai is hereby directed to dispose of the Interlocutory Application in I.A.No.201 of 2013, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, without loss of further time.

¶23

Sd/Assistant Registrar (T&P)

¶24

/True copy/

¶25

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶26

¶27

The Principal Sub Court, Madurai.

¶28

Ps SR : 13.05.2014 : 2p/2c

¶29

C.R.P(MD)No.919 of 2014 23.04.2014

¶30

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

Chandran, v. a.R.Sngusamy

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chandran, v. a.R.Sngusamy

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.Jawahar (M/64), Vs a.Periyapalanichamy

Rajan Vs Retna Raj

Chandran, Vs a.R.Angusamy

Minor. Dhatchana, Rep. by Her Vs v. Nagaperumal

D. Vijay Anand, Vs B. Sugadev

P.Velu Azhagan Vs P.Ilakkuvan