Dismissed

Sampath Kumar v. Maragathavalli

Madras HC13 Apr 2015CRP NPD/1046/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court at Madras admitted a civil revision petition challenging a CMA filed against an order setting aside an ex parte decree. Since the trial court disposed of the suit during the revision's pendency without a stay, the Court dismissed the petition as infructuous with no costs.

What did the court decide?

The Civil Revision Petition is dismissed as infructuous. No costs awarded.

Sampath Kumar Vs Maragathavalli — Execution and Attachment | Madras HC (2015)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 13.04.2015

¶3

CORAM:

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE K.B.K.VASUKI

¶5

C.R.P.(NPD).No.1046 of 2006

¶6

Ganapathisamy (Died)
1.Sampath Kumar
2.Anantharaj
3.Manickam
4.G.Mohan ... Petitioners/Plaintiff
Vs.
1.Maragathavalli
2.Venkidulakshmi Ammal ... Respondents/3 rd & 4 th Defendants
PRAYER: This Civil Revision Petition is filed under Section 115 of
the Code of Civil Procedure against the order passed in CMA No.2 of
2004 on the file of Sub Court, Pollachi, dated 14.10.2004 reversing
the order passed in I.A.No.1666 of 1997 in O.S.No.500 of 1995 on the
file of District Munsif Court, Pollachi, dated 13.04.1998.

¶7

For Petitioner : Mr.V.Bharathidasan
For Respondents : Mr.H.Nazirudeen for R1
R2 – Died
O R D E R

¶8

Both the learned counsel on record are present.

¶9

2.The revision petition is filed by the plaintiffs against the order thereby setting aside the ex parte decree passed against the respondents herein. The suit was decreed ex parte and a petition under Order 9 Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure filed by the contesting defendants was dismissed. Against which, CMA No.22 of 2004 was filed by the defendants and the same was allowed thereby setting aside the ex parte decree and restored the suit to the file of the trial Court. Aggrieved against which, the plaintiffs have preferred the present Civil Revision Petition.

¶10

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

¶11

3.The present Civil Revision Petition is admitted on 18.07.2006 without granting any order of stay. In view of the same, the suit was restored to file and the trial Court disposed of the same in the regular course during the pendency of this revision. As such, nothing survives in this Civil Revision Petition and the Civil Revision Petition is hence dismissed as infructuous. No costs.

¶12

Assistant Registrar(CS IV)

¶13

//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
kal
To
1.The Subordinate Judge,
Pollachi.
2.The District Munsif,
Pollachi.
3.The Section Officer,
V.R. Section,
High Court, Madras.
+1cc to Mr.V.Bharathidasan, Advocate, S.R.No.20434
+1cc to Mr.H.Nazirudeen, Advocate, S.R.No.20526
C.R.P.(NPD).No.1046 of 2006
MSM(CO)
CA(20/05/2015)

¶14

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

Sampath Kumar v. Maragathavalli

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sampath Kumar v. Maragathavalli

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

D.Andrina Vs George

M/S.Embiotic Laboratories Pltd Vs the State Rep by

Manickam, Vs Paramasivam

Ayyasamy Udayar Vs Thangam

Dharmalingam Vs Vijayalakshmi

Kiyan @ Palani, Vs R.Susheela Ramasamy