Dismissed

M.Sudharsan v. K.Sriramulu(Died) K.Venugopal

Madras HC7 Jun 2016CRP/1162/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a challenge invoking Article 226, the Madras High Court upheld the Additional Special Judge's order dismissing applications by plaintiffs to recall witnesses for producing documents. The High Court found no error in viewing the request as a belated attempt to protract pending partition proceedings.

What did the court decide?

The Civil Revision Petitions were dismissed and no costs were awarded to the petitioners.

M.Sudharsan Vs K.Sriramulu(Died) K.Venugopal — Partition | Madras HC (2016)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 07.06.2016

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.T.SELVAM

¶6

Civil Revision Petition (PD) Nos.1162 & 1179 of 2016

1.M.Sudharsan

2.M.Vikram

3.M.Vimal

... Petitioners

K.Sriramulu (died) S/o.Krishnaamy Reddiyar

1.K.Venugopal

2.K.Mani

3.Sakkubai

4.Sadhakar

5.Prabhakar

6.Rajalakshmi

... Respondents

Civil Revision Petitions filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the orders of learned Additional Special Judge, Krishnagiri, passed in I.A.Nos.16 and 17 of 2016 in O.S.No.84 of 2007 on 23.02.2016.

¶21

For Petitioners : Mr.T.Parvendan

¶22

¶23

C O M M O N O R D E R

¶24

These revisions challenge the orders of learned Additional Special

¶25

Judge, Krishnagiri, passed in I.A.Nos.16 and 17 of 2016 in O.S.No.84 of 2007 on 23.02.2016.

¶26

¶27

Heard learned counsel for petitioners.

¶28

O.S.No.84 of 2007 is a suit preferred by petitioners seeking partition.

¶29

I.A.Nos.16 and 17 of 2016 have been moved by petitioners/plaintiffs towards

¶30

recalling first petitioner/PW-1 towards marking birth certificate, gas consumer connection invoice, invitation of the ear boring ceremony and other documents, the intent of petitioners being to establish that they were residing at the plaint schedule property along with defendants. In dismissing such applications, the Court below has reasoned that the suit was of the year 2007

¶31

and the same was pending at the stage of arguments, that the reasons informed by petitioners/plaintiffs of their having received the documents only now was unbelievable and unconvincing. The Court below found the applications moved at a very belated stage merely intended to protract proceedings. This Court finds no error in the orders under challenge.

¶32

The Civil Revision Petitions are dismissed. No costs.

¶33

07.06.2016

¶34

Index:yes/no Internet:yes gm

¶35

¶36

¶37

The Additional Special Judge, Krishnagiri.

C.T.SELVAM, J

Civil Revision Petition (PD) Nos.1162 & 1179 of 2016

¶42

07.06.2016

M.Sudharsan v. K.Sriramulu(Died) K.Venugopal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.Sudharsan v. K.Sriramulu(Died) K.Venugopal

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

K.Mahaboob Bibi Vs G.Roopavathy Ammal

J. Sasikumar Vs P. Jakkamma

Mr.Arumugam Vs R.Subramani

Tmt.Dev.R.Evelin Vs S.Alwin Manuel

S.P.Kavitha Vs Senthil Prabhu

S.N.Balapattabi Vs Bala Nagammal