Dismissed

Murali v. Chandrasekar

Madras HC31 Oct 2017CRP/325/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Madras dismissed a civil revision petition filed under Article 226 seeking to set aside an order rejecting an application to withdraw a suit. The Court refused to interfere as the petitioner only raised formal defects. The petitioner was granted liberty to file a fresh application.

What did the court decide?

Civil revision petition dismissed with liberty to file a fresh application before the trial court if advised.

Murali Vs Chandrasekar — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Madras HC (2017)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 31.10.2017

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D. KRISHNAKUMAR

¶6

C.R.P.(P.D.) NO.325 of 2016

¶7

Murali ..Petitioner
Vs.
1.Chandrasekar
2.Govindan ..Respondents

¶8

Prayer: The CRP Petition is filed under Article 227 of Constitution of

¶9

India, to allow the Civil Revision Petition and set aside the order and decreetal order passed on 28.07.2015 in I.A.No.389 of 2014 in

¶10

O.S.No.89 of 2088 by the Additional District Munsit, Tindivanam.

¶11

For Petitioner : Mr.P. Sankaranarayanan For Respondents: Mr. V. Raghavachari

¶12

ORDER

¶13

This Civil Revision Petition is filed to set aside the order and

¶14

decreetal order passed on 28.07.2015 in I.A. No.389 of 2014 in O.S. No.89 of 2008 on the file of the Additional District Munsif, Tindivanam.

¶15

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶16

¶17

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondents have filed objection to the Commissioner's Report in I.A. No.315 of 2008 and the said application was dismissed. As the petitioner could not effectively convince the Court by enlightening the objection of the respondents for the Commissioner's report. So, those defects are only formal defects. Therefore, the petitioner has filed I.A. No.389 of 2014 to withdraw the suit with liberty to file a fresh suit on the same cause of action. It is observed by the Court below, "the formal defects are not explained by the petitioner based on the relevant facts or documentary evidence. Hence, the said application was dismissed.

¶18

3.Against the Dismissal order of the court below, the present Civil revision petition is filed before this court.

¶19

4.During the course of the arguments, the learned Counsel for

¶20

the petitioner seeks liberty to file fresh application before the trial

¶21

court under Order 23 Rule 1(3)a of CPC. Further, the counsel for the petitioner quotes the case of Rajamanickam Vs. P. Dhandapani and others in S.A. No.235 of 2011 dated 30.07.2013 with reasons stated in paragraphs being 32 & 33, which are extracted hereunder:

¶22

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶23

¶24

" 32. Over and above that even in this case, as such the injuction Suit cannot be converted into a Suit for declaration and also for partion. These are all quite abvious. There is formal defect also in the suit as pointed out by the Defendants themselves that the Suit itself is bad for want of a prayer for declaration.

¶25

34. In the presence of all these defects and also the complications involved in this suit, in the fitness of things, permission for withdrawal could rightly be granted, so that the Plaintiff could file a comprehensive Suit seeking adequate reliefs; whereupon binding decisions could be rendered."

¶26

5.In the light of the above decision and the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the Civil revision petition is dismissed. However, liberty is given to the petitioner to file fresh application, if he is so advised, as observed above. There shall be no order as to costs.

31.10.2017

lbm

Index: Yes/No

Internet: Yes/No

Speaking/Non-speaking

¶32

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶33

¶34

D.KRISHNAKUMAR.J,

¶35

lbm

¶36

C.R.P.(P.D.) NO.325 of 2016
31.10.2017

¶37

http://www.judis.nic.in

Murali v. Chandrasekar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Murali v. Chandrasekar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Saraswathy Vs Kasiammal

R.Ganesan Vs K.Durai Kannu

Iffco Tokio General Insurace Vs Premalatha

M.Sankar Vs P.Parimala(Unsound Mind)

Nanjappa Gounder Vs K.D.Ramaswamy

Mohan,S/O.Jagannathan Vs Bhavani,W/O.Karunanidhi