Dismissed

Kanagarathinammal (Died) v. Spmrm. Muthiah Pillai

Madras HC14 Jun 2017CMP(MD)/4866/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madurai Bench dismissed four civil miscellaneous petitions seeking restoration of a revision petition (and related original suit proceedings) dismissed for default. The court rejected the petition on the grounds that the counsel's consistent non-appearance for over 16 years demonstrated a lack of merit in continuing the proceedings.

What did the court decide?

Civil Miscellaneous Petitions CMP(MD) Nos. 4866 to 4869 of 2017 are dismissed.

Kanagarathinammal (Died) Vs Spmrm. Muthiah Pillai — Property and Title | Madras HC (2017)

¶1

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Civil Appellate Jurisdiction )

¶2

Wednesday, the Fourteenth day of June Two Thousand Seventeen

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

The Hon`ble Dr.Justice G.JAYACHANDRAN

¶5

CMP(MD) Nos.4866 to 4869 of 2017

¶6

¶7

CRP NPD No.811 of 2004

¶8

1 KANAGARATHINAMMAL (DIED) ...SOLE REVISION PETITIONER

¶9

2 P.BHAVANI, 3 N.PORKODI, ... PETITIONERS/PETITIONERS PROPOSED PETITIONERS 2 & 3

¶10

¶11

1 SPMRM. MUTHIAH PILLAI

¶12

2 P.MARUTHAPPAN,

¶13

3 P.JEYAPAL (DIED)

¶14

4 P.ARASARATHINAM,

¶15

5 S.ARASARATHINAM,

¶16

6 S.GURUSAMY

¶17

7 TMT. HARIBA BEEVI

¶18

8 TMT.RATHINA KUMARI

¶19

9 P.ABDULLAH

¶20

10 SMT.JENNATH BEGUM ... RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS

¶21

Prayer in CMP(MD). 4866/ 2017 in CRP NPD No.811 of 2004: Petition praying that in the circumstances stated therein and in the affidavit filed therewith the High Court will be pleased to restore the CRP.No.811/2004, which was dismissed for default on 12.2.2016 to this file of this Honourable Court and thus render justice.

¶22

Prayer in CMP(MD). 4867/ 2017 in CRP NPD No.811 of 2004: Petition praying that in the circumstances stated therein and in the affidavit filed therewith the High Court will be pleased to restore the M.P.No.1 of 2013 in C.R.P.No.811/2004, which was dismissed for default on 12.2.2016, to the file of this Honourable Court, and thus render justice.

¶23

Prayer in CMP(MD). 4868/ 2017 in CRP NPD No.811 of 2004 : Petition praying that in the circumstances stated therein and in the affidavit filed therewith the High Court will be pleased to restore the M.P.No.2 of 2013 in C.R.P.No.811/2004, which was dismissed for default on 12.2.2016, to the file of this Honourable Court, and thus render justice.

¶24

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

¶25

Prayer in CMP(MD). 4869/ 2017 in CRP NPD No.811 of 2004: Petition praying that in the circumstances stated therein and in the affidavit filed therewith the High Court will be pleased to restore the M.P.No.3 of 2013 in C.R.P.No.811/2004, which was dismissed for default on 12.2.2016 to the file of this Honourable Court, and thus render justice.

¶26

PRAYER IN CRP NPD No.811 of 2004:Civil Revision Petition against Order and Decreetal Order in I.A.No.363/2002 in I.A.No.95/2002 in O.S.No.90/1999 on the file of the District Munsif, Tiruppatur dated 07.03.2003.

¶27

ORDER : These petitions coming on for orders upon perusing the petitions and the affidavit filed in support thereof and upon hearing the arguments of Mr.S.Ramesh, Advocate for the petitioner in all the petitions the court made the following order:-

¶28

The suit in O.S.No.90 of 1999 was filed for declaration and consequential relief of injunction in the year 1999 by the revision petitioner and the suit was dismissed for default on 14.12.2001. To restore the suit, the revision petitioner has filed an application in I.A.No.95 of 2002 with a delay of 40 days. When the application for condonation of delay was taken up for enquiry, there was no representation for the revision petitioner and hence, the application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1965, was dismissed.

¶29

Thereafter, another application in I.A.No.363 of 2002 was filed with a delay of 18 days to restore the I.A.No.95 of 2002. The trial Court after considering the pleadings and the contact of the revision petitioner has dismissed the petition.

¶30

Aggrieved by the same, the revision petition in C.R.P(NPD) No.811 of 2004 was filed by the revision petitioner/plaintiff. When the revision petition was pending for adjudication and taken up for final hearing on 09.02.2016, there was no representation for the revision petitioner and hence, the matter was listed under the caption 'for dismissal' on 12.02.2016. Even on that day, there was no representation for the revision petitioner and hence, this Court https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ dismissed the revision petition on 12.02.2016.

¶31

The learned Counsel appearing for the revision petitioner has taken out the above applications to restore the revision petition which was dismissed for default.

¶32

The consistent non-appearance of the learned Counsel for the revision petitioner would lead to the dismissal right from the Original Suit and the application to restore the suit and the revision petitioner does not bother about this Court to entertain the revision petition.

¶33

Hence, this Court finds no merit to allow the above Civil Miscellaneous Petitions and give a new life to the suit filed in the year 1999 and allowed to be dismissed for default in the year 2001, after a lapse of 16 years.

¶34

Therefore, C.M.P(MD)Nos.4866 to 4869 of 2017 are dismissed.

¶35

/ TRUE COPY /

¶36

Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,

¶37

¶38

THE DISTRICT MUNSIF, TIRUPPATUR

¶39

SM:PM-PN:SAR 1:23.6.2017:3P/2C

¶40

CMP(MD) Nos.4866 TO 4869 of 2017

¶41

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

Kanagarathinammal (Died) v. Spmrm. Muthiah Pillai

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kanagarathinammal (Died) v. Spmrm. Muthiah Pillai

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

Umaiorupagam Vs C.Vijayapandian

Venkatram Vs the Inspector of Police

Kannan, S/O.Alagarsamy, Vs the Inspector of Police

Pethammal Vs the Inspector of Police

J.Jinu Solomon, Vs the State Rep. by

Sekar Vs the Inspector of Police