Dismissed

A.Kalimuthan, v. the Principal District Judge

Madras HC23 Mar 2015WP(MD)/4016/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This High Court dismissed a writ petition under Article 226 seeking a writ of mandamus to direct a Sub Judge to reconstruct a missing case bundle. The court held that such a writ is not legally sustainable as the writ jurisdiction cannot verify averments and does not substitute administrative duties.

What did the court decide?

No order directing reconstruction of the case bundle; dismissal of the writ petition without costs.

A.Kalimuthan, Vs the Principal District Judge — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Madras HC (2015)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 23.03.2015 CORAM:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE S.TAMILVANAN

¶4

and

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.S.RAVI

¶6

W.P(MD)No.4016 of 2015

A.Kalimuthan

... Petitioner

Vs .

1.The Principal District Judge, Tuticorin District, Tuticorin.

¶11

2.The Sub Judge, Tuticorin, Tuticorin District.

¶12

3.The Additional District Munsif, Tuticorin, Tuticorin District. ... Respondents

¶13

Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of Writ of Mandamus, directing the 2nd respondent to a reconstruct a new bundle within the time stipulated by this Honourable Court.

¶14

For Petitioner : Mr.C.Asaithambi

¶15

For Respondents : Mr.N.Mohideen Basha

¶16

ORDER

¶17

(Order of the Court was made by S.TAMILVANAN,J )

¶18

This writ petition has been filed invoking Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking an order in the nature of writ of mandamus, directing the Sub Judge, Tuticorin, the second respondent herein to reconstruct a new bundle within the time stipulated by this Court.

¶19

2.If any case bundle is missing, the petitioner should approach the concerned Court in writing and then, the District Court, if need be to High Court on the administrative side, even he can invoke Article 227 by filing a petition, if the remedy is not available in approaching the authorities administratively. However, writ petition cannot be filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking an order directing the Sub Judge to reconstruct the case bundle. This writ Court dealing with writ jurisdiction, cannot verify the genuineness of the averments and the details given by the petitioner in the writ petition. On the aforesaid circumstances, we are of the view that the writ petition itself is not legally sustainable. However, we make it clear https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ that it is open to the petitioner to approach the Principal District Judge, Tuticorin in writing administrative side of the High Court and

¶20

¶21

then file a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution in case, the remedy is not available.

¶22

3.With the above observation, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs. Sd/Assistant Registrar(AS)

¶23

/TRUE COPY/

¶24

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶25

¶26

1.The Principal District Judge, Tuticorin District, Tuticorin.

¶27

2.The Sub Judge, Tuticorin, Tuticorin District.

¶28

3.The Additional District Munsif, Tuticorin, Tuticorin District.

¶29

+1cc to Mr.C.Asaithambi,Advocate, SR.No.13854

¶30

W.P(MD)No.4016 of 2015 23.03.2015

¶31

sms PA/10.04.2015/2P/5C

¶32

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

A.Kalimuthan, v. the Principal District Judge

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

A.Kalimuthan, v. the Principal District Judge

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

Thangavel, Vs the Supdt. of Police

A.Sithan Vs the Superintendent of Police

I.Sabeer Mohamed Vs the Principal Secretary

International Srivaishnava Vs the Commissioner

P.Balasubramaniam, Vs the State Rep.by Its Principal

O.Kodiyarasan, Vs the Superintendent of Police