Allowed

S. Thamizharasan v. M/S Crescent Auto Repairs and

Madras HC27 Sept 2016OSA/149/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court agreed with the respondent that theimpeached appellant was wrongly impleaded in a specific performance suit where no such necessity exists. Consequently, the appellant was deleted from the suit, rendering the original side appeal infructuous.

What did the court decide?

Appellant deleted from the suit array of parties; original side appeal disposed of as infructuous.

S. Thamizharasan Vs M/S Crescent Auto Repairs and — Specific Performance | Madras HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 27.09.2016

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR.SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, CHIEF JUSTICE and THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.MAHADEVAN

¶5

O.S.A.No.149 of 2016

¶6

S.Thamizharasan ... Appellant Vs 1. M/s.Crescent Auto Repairs and Services India (Private) Limited, rep. by its Director A.K.Abdullah, No.9, Cenotop Road, Alwarpet, Chennai-600 018. 2. Chennai Vazh Kovilpatti Nadar Uravinmurai Sangam, rep. by its President L.M.Krishnasamy Nadar, No.18/1, Lattice Bridge Road, Adayar, Chennai-20. ... Respondents

¶7

Original Side Appeals filed under Order XXXVI, Rule 9 of Original Side Rules read with Clause 15 of Letters Patent against the order dated 07.07.2015 made in A.No.4376 of 2015 in C.S.No.23 of 2012 on the file of this Court.

¶8

For Appellant : Mrs.Hema Sampath Senior Counsel for M/s.S.Packiaraj For Respondents : Mr.Sagadevan for R1 Mr.B.Muthurasu for R2

¶9

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

¶10

JUDGMENT

¶11

(Judgment of the Court was delivered by The Hon'ble Chief Justice)

¶12

In the course of hearing, it transpires that the appellant really has nothing to do with the issue of specific performance of the suit. The learned counsel for the first respondent/original plaintiff states that since prior to the institution of the suit for specific performance, a bare injunction suit was filed before the City Civil Court, Chennai by the appellant, the plaintiff had impleaded the appellant as party. The learned counsel concedes that really in a specific performance suit, there was no need to implead the appellant as party and thus, seeks deletion of the appellant from the array of parties in the suit.

¶13

We are in agreement with the submission and thus delete the appellant from the array of parties in the suit. 3. In the aforesaid circumstances, the appeal really has become infructuous and accordingly disposed of, leaving the parties to bear their own costs. Sd/Assistant Registrar(CS IV) //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar bbr To The Sub Assistant Registrar, Original Side, High Court, Madras. +1cc to Mr.B.Muthurasu, Advocate, S.R.No.55451 +1cc to Mr.R.Sagadevan, Advocate, S.R.No.55358 +1cc to Mr.S.Packiaraj, Advocate, S.R.No.55910 O.S.A.No.149 of 2016 NM(CO) CA(06/10/2016)

¶14

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

S. Thamizharasan v. M/S Crescent Auto Repairs and

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S. Thamizharasan v. M/S Crescent Auto Repairs and

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

C.v.Devidasan Vs S.Mohan

Mr.Manish Gupta Vs M/S Monotech Systems Ltd.

Ss Pankajam Vs Ss Visalakshmi Ammal

C.M.Dhinakaran Vs Mrs S.Annapoona

R. Venkataraman Vs S.T. Sundari

M.Arivazhagan Vs The District Collector