Dismissed

D. Chinnadurai v. N. Duraisamy

Madras HC4 Apr 2017CRP/1034/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madras High Court dismissed a Civil Revision Petition challenging a Trial Court order that admitted an immediate examination of a 96-year-old first defendant under Order XVIII Rule 16 CPC. The bench found no infirmity or illegality and reversed the revision petition. The trial court acted correctly given the litigant's age.

What did the court decide?

Civil Revision Petition dismissed; no order as to costs; connected Miscellaneous Petition closed.

D. Chinnadurai Vs N. Duraisamy — Property and Title | Madras HC (2017)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 04.04.2017

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE Mr. JUSTICE M.SUNDAR

¶6

C.R.P.(PD) No.1034 of 2017 and C.M.P.No.5022 of 2017

¶7

D.Chinnadurai .. Petitioner

¶8

..vs..

¶9

N.Duraisamy .. Respondent

¶10

Prayer: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, against the order made in I.A.No.137 of 2016 in O.S.No.152 of 2014 dated 11.11.2016 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Perambalur.

¶11

For Petitioner : Mr.K.Selvarangan

¶12

O R D E R

¶13

Plaintiff in the trial Court is the revision petitioner before me.

¶14

2.First defendant in the trial Court took out an application under Order

¶15

XVIII Rule 16 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred as

¶16

¶17

'C.P.C.' for brevity) with a prayer to examine the first defendant immediately.

¶18

3.It is not in dispute that the first defendant is now 96 years old.

¶19

4.The main suit is one for partition and separate possession. After

¶20

hearing both sides, the trial Court by an order dated 11.11.2016 allowed the

¶21

application for examining the 96 year old first defendant immediately. As against this, the plaintiff has preferred the instant civil revision petition.

¶22

5.I have perused the order of the trial Court. The order of the trial

¶23

Court is one where I do not find any infirmity or illegality. I find no reason to interfere.

¶24

6.This Court is of the view that when a 96 year old litigant comes up

¶25

with a prayer that he should be examined immediately, the prayer has to be acceded to and the trial Court has rightly done so.

¶26

7.Therefore, I am not interfering with the order of the trial Court in this

¶27

matter. The Civil Revision Petition lacks merits and is dismissed. There shall

¶28

be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is

closed.

04.04.2017

Index:Yes/No kj To

The District Munsif Court, Perambalur.

M.SUNDAR, J.

C.R.P.(PD) No.1034 of 2017 and C.M.P.No.5022 of 2017

¶38

04.04.2017

¶39

http://www.judis.nic.in

D. Chinnadurai v. N. Duraisamy

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

D. Chinnadurai v. N. Duraisamy

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

Mrs. Jogara Beivi @ Pathimuthu Vs Mr. Selvakkumar

C.Kuppan Vathiyar Vs D.Venkatesan

Jothi Arumugam Vs P.Natarajan

V.Sengottaiyan Vs Chellammal

C.K.Moidu Vs R.Sudhakar Babu

R. Dharmalingam Vs K. Srinivasan