Dismissed

Karuppana Gounder v. Vennila

Madras HC13 Jan 2015CRP(MD)/2362/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madras High Court dismissed a civil revision petition challenging the District Munsif's order condoning a 2003-day delay to set aside abatement caused by the death of the first defendant. The court held the lower court's discretion was justified given the family relationships and directed swift disposal of the underlying suit.

What did the court decide?

The civil revision petition and connected miscellaneous petition were dismissed. The trial court directed to dispose of the suit by March 31, 2015.

Karuppana Gounder Vs Vennila — Partition | Madras HC (2015)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: /1/2015

¶4

THE HONOURABLE Ms.JUSTICE PUSHPA SATHYANARAYANA

¶5

C.R.P. PD(MD) No.2362 of 2014

¶6

Karuppana Gounder

¶7

... Petitioner/2^nd Respondent/ 2^nd Respondent/2^nd Defendant

¶8

¶9

Vennila

¶10

Minor Lakshmi

¶11

rep. through her friend and natural guardian/first respondent herein. ..Respondents 1 & 2/ Petitioners/ Petitioners/Plaintiffs

¶12

Rathinam ...3rd Respondent/3^rd Respondent /3^rd Respondent/3^rd Respondent

¶13

Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India praying to set aside the fair and decreetal order dated 7/8/2014 made in I.A.No.408 of 2011 in I.A.No.98 of 2010 in O.S.No.513 of 1998 (District Munsif Court, Palani) on the file of the District Munsif Court, Oddanchathiram and dismiss the same.

¶14

For petitioner ... Mr.D.Rajkumar

¶15

For respondents ... Mr.D.Venkatesh for R.R.1 and 2.

¶16

No appearance for R.3.

¶17

Orders reserved on 6/1/2015

¶18

O R D E R

¶19

This revision is against the order condoning the delay of 2003 days in setting aside the abatement caused due to the death of the first defendant.

¶20

The contention of the petitioner is that though the trial Court had held that there was no sufficient cause had allowed the application in the interest of justice which is unwarranted.

¶21

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

¶22

Heard both sides.

¶23

¶24

The parties are closely related and the plaintiffs are the daughters of the deceased first defendant. The trial Judge, after considering the respective arguments, despite holding that there was no sufficient reason given by the respondents had allowed the application exercising the discretion. The suit being one for partition, it is necessary that all the parties are before the Court and the second defendant is only the brother of the first defendant. Therefore, there is no reason to interfere with the discretion exercised by the District Munsif in allowing the delay petition.

¶25

In the result, this Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No costs. Since, the suit is of the year 1998, the learned District Munsif is directed to dispose of the suit on or before 31^st March, 2015 and report compliance to this Court. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition is also dismissed.

Sd/-

Assistant Registrar

/True Copy/

Sub Assistant Registrar(C.S.)

¶30

¶31

The District Munsif Court, Oddanchathiram

¶32

The District Munsif, Palani

¶33

+1cc to Mr. D.Venkatesh ,Advocate in SR.No. 1704

¶34

+1cc to Mr.D.Rajkumar,Advocate in SR.No. 2144

¶35

TS/28.01.2015/2P-5C

¶36

order in C.R.P.PD (MD) No.2362 of 2014

¶37

13/1/2015

¶38

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

Karuppana Gounder v. Vennila

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Karuppana Gounder v. Vennila

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

R.Punitham Vs S.Raju

Rasammal, Vs v.Subramaniam

D.Vijay Anand, Vs R.Niranjan

S.Shanmugavel, Vs Baluchamy

B.K.Saravanapandiayan Vs M/S.Citicorp Finance (India)

A/M. Varadaraja Perumal Temple Vs T.S.G.Manickam