Allowed

Dhanapal v. the Special Thasildar

Madras HC24 Mar 2016CMP/1631/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court allowed an application to amend the cause title of A.S.No.367 of 1994. Based on submissions and evidence that Mani (3rd respondent) and Dhanapal (12th respondent) are identical, the order deleted the name Mani from the 2006 judgment.

What did the court decide?

C.M.P. No. 1631 of 2016 allowed; the name Mani deleted as 3rd respondent in A.S. No. 367 of 1994; Registry directed to issue amended judgment copy.

Dhanapal Vs the Special Thasildar — Madras HC (2016) — LawSathi Research

¶1

C.M.P.No.1631 of 2016

¶2

in A.S.No.367 of 1994

¶3

R.SUDHAKAR,J. AND S.VAIDYANATHAN,J.

¶4

(Order of the Court was made by R.SUDHAKAR,J.)

¶5

This petition is filed to amend the cause title in the judgment and decree dated 17.02.2006 made in A.S.No.367 of 1994 on the file of this Court by deleting the name Mani, 4th respondent herein.

¶6

It is seen that in the appeal in A.S.No.367 of 1994, the name of the third respondent was shown as Mani. When the father of the third respondent died, the legal representatives of the father were impleaded, in which the third respondent Mani was again impleaded as Dhanapal 12th respondent in appeal, since his name is Mani @ Dhanapal.

¶7

It is stated that the third respondent, viz., Mani and 12th respondent Dhanapal in A.S.No.367 of 1994 are one and the same. In support of this contention, learned counsel appearing for the 12th respondent Dhanapal has produced a letter dated 19.04.2012 issued by the Zonal Tahsildar, Erode, wherein it is stated that P.Dhanapal and P.Mani are one and the same person. Learned counsel submitted that by over sight the name Mani has been shown as third respondent in the appeal and at the same time Dhanapal has also been impleaded as 12th respondent in the appeal in A.S.No.367 of 1994.

¶8

R.SUDHAKAR,J.

¶9

AND

¶10

S.VAIDYANATHAN,J.

¶11

This Court, by order dated 02.03.2016 issued notice to other respondents to verify whether they have any objection. On notice, they entered appearance and submitted that they have no objection and have confirmed the fact that Dhanapal 12th respondent in A.S.No.367 of 1994 in the appeal is none other than Mani, the third respondent.

¶12

In view of the above, the name Mani, which finds place as third respondent in the judgment dated 17.2.2006 in A.S.No.367 of 1994 stands deleted. Accordingly, this petition stands ordered by deleting the third respondent Mani in A.S.No.367 of 1994.

¶13

¶14

Note: Registry is directed to issue amended copy of the judgment dated 17.2.2006 made in A.S.No.367 of 1994.

¶15

C.M.P.No.1631 of 2016

¶16

in A.S.No.367 of 1994

Dhanapal v. the Special Thasildar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dhanapal v. the Special Thasildar

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

The Branch Manager Vs Chitra

M. Chinnasamy, Vs R.Madhu, S/O.Raji

R.Pandiammal Vs a.Sheik Jaffar

Union of India Vs K.Suryanarayana, S/o.Veeraiah

The Managing Director Vs Kalaiselvan

Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs P.v.Gopala Krishnan