Dismissed

S. Daniel v. Theneyveli Lignite Corporation

Madras HC11 Jan 2017CRP/1089/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Civil Revision Petition filed by S.Daniel and S.Ratchagar under Section 115 CPC was dismissed for non-prosecution due to the petitioner's continuous absence despite listings for dismissal. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions were closed.

What did the court decide?

The Civil Revision Petition is dismissed for non-prosecution; No costs. Connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

S. Daniel Vs Theneyveli Lignite Corporation — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Madras HC (2017)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 11.01.2017

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.V.MURALIDARAN

¶6

CRP(NPD)No.1089 of 2012 and

¶7

M.P.Nos.1 and 2 of 2012 and Caveat No.1312 of 2012

1.S.Daniel

2.S.Ratchagar

.. Petitioners

1.The Neyveli Lignite Corporation Limited, Represented by its Managing Director, Neyveli Lignite Corporation Limited, Neyveli, Cuddalore District.

¶13

2.The Chief General Manager, Neyveli Lignite Corporation Limited, Neyveli, Cuddalore District.

¶14

3.The Estate Officer – Eviction Authority, Assistant Township Administrator, Neyveli Lignite Corporation Limited, Neyveli, Cuddalore District. Respondents

¶15

PRAYER: Civil Revision Petition filed under Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code, against the impugned order dated 05.03.2012 passed by the learned Principal District Judge, Cuddalore District, Cuddalore in CMA.No.15 of 2011, on the file of the learned Principal District Judge, Cuddalore District, Cuddalore.

¶16

For Petitioners : No Appearance For Respondents : Mr.Nithiyanantham

¶17

¶18

M.V.MURALIDARAN,J.

¶19

¶20

O R D E R

¶21

No representation on behalf of the petitioners. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents is present. Even in the last two hearings, namely on 23.12.2016 and on 10.01.2017 there was no representation on behalf of the petitioners. Due to continuous absence on the side of the petitioners, the case was directed to be listed today under the caption "for dismissal". Even today, when the case is listed under the caption "for dismissal", there is no representation on behalf of the petitioners. Therefore, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed for non prosecution. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

¶22

11.01.2017

¶23

vs Index:Yes/No Internet:Yes/No

¶24

¶25

The Principal District Judge, Cuddalore District, Cuddalore.

¶26

CRP(NPD)No.1089 of 2012 and M.P.Nos.1 and 2 of 2012 and Caveat No.1312 of 2012

¶27

http://www.judis.nic.in

S. Daniel v. Theneyveli Lignite Corporation

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S. Daniel v. Theneyveli Lignite Corporation

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

T. Sheba Rani Vs the State of Tamil Nadu

K.Raju Vs Anwarden

S.Kandasamy (Died) Vs Ayyapan (Dead)

Paramasivam Vs Padmavathy

Minor Ranjani Rep. by Her Vs N. Mohan

N.Subramani Vs Saroja