Disposed

Vijayabalan v. Murugaiyan

Madras HC23 Oct 2017CRP/3785/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this civil revision petition, the Madras High Court directed the District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate at Nannilam to dispose of an interlocutory application seeking impleadment of legal representatives within four months due to inordinate delay caused by the non-filing of the official respondent's reply.

What did the court decide?

Directed the lower court to dispose of IA No.320 of 2015 within four months of receiving a copy of this order.

Vijayabalan Vs Murugaiyan — Partition | Madras HC (2017)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 23.10.2017

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE D. KRISHNAKUMAR

¶6

CRP (PD) No. 3785 of 2017
Vijayabalan .. Petitioner
Vs
1. Murugaiyan
2. Pachayammal
3. Gunasekaran
4. Iyyapan
5. Annakili
6. Venkatesan
7. Vinoth Kumar
Radha Krishnan (deceased)
8. Sub-Registrar,
Nannilam. .. Respondents

¶7

PRAYER: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, to direct the District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Nannilam, to dispose of the application in I.A.No.320 of 2015 in O.S.No.41 of 2015 within a stipulate period.

¶8

For Petitioner : Mr. R. Shanmugam, Sr. Counsel for Mr.S.V.Karthikeyan

¶9

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶10

¶11

O R D E R

¶12

This Civil Revision Petition is filed seeking to direct the

¶13

District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Nannilam, to dispose of the application in I.A.No.320 of 2015 in O.S.No.41 of 2015 within a stipulate

¶14

period.

¶15

According to the petitioner, the 1^st respondent filed a suit in O.S. No. 41 of 2015 for partition and declaration of the Will dated

¶16

22.03.1991 as not maintainable and barred by limitation. During trial, the 8^th defendant in the suit died on 23.07.2015 and hence an application was filed in I.A. No.320 of 2015 under Order 22 Rule 4(1) of CPC, to implead the legal representatives of the deceased 8^th defendant. Notice has been served to the defendants and counter affidavit has also been

¶17

filed by the respondents/ defendants, except 9^th defendant. Hence, the Interlocutory Application was merely adjourned from time to time, without disposing the said application. Therefore, the present revision has been filed before this court, for the aforesaid limited scope of

¶18

prayer.

¶19

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶20

¶21

The learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner

¶22

would submit that I.A. No. 320 of 2015 was filed on 12.10.2015. All the respondents have filed their counter affidavit except the 9^th defendant/ respondent, who is an official respondent. For the said reason, the matter is being dragged on, for all these years. Hence, he prayed for disposal of the said Interlocutory Application, within the time framed by

¶23

this Court.

¶24

Considering the submission of the learned senior counsel

¶25

and the above said facts, this Court is inclined to direct the court below, to dispose of the I.A. No. 320 of 2015, in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of four months from

¶26

the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶27

The Civil Revision Petition is disposed of, with the above

direction. No costs.

23.10.2017

avr

The District Munsif-cumJudicial Magistrate, Nannilam,

¶33

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶34

¶35

D. KRISHNAKUMAR J.,

¶36

avr

¶37

CRP (PD) No. 3785 of 2017
23.10.2017

¶38

http://www.judis.nic.in

Vijayabalan v. Murugaiyan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vijayabalan v. Murugaiyan

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

V.M.Sankaran Vs Siva Kanchi Udasi Mutt@

Gokula Rao Vs Prema Kumari

R.M.S.Vasantha Vs Porkalaiselvi

Kunjarammal Vs Kandasamy

M. Sundari Vs K. Ashok Kumar

R.Senthil Vs Nallammal