Dismissed

M.Krishnan v. M.Madhisiva

Madras HC14 Nov 2017CRP/4160/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The single-judge division of the Madras High Court dismissed a Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 226 challenging the dismissal of an interlocutory application. While the petitioners undertook to pay costs, the court noted their failure to file an application under Section 148 of CPC for time extension, resulting in dismissal.

What did the court decide?

The Civil Revision Petition is dismissed with liberty to file an application under Section 148 of CPC within one week.

M.Krishnan Vs M.Madhisiva — Execution and Attachment | Madras HC (2017)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 14.11.2017

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE D. KRISHNAKUMAR

¶6

CRP (PD) No. 4160 of 2017
and
CMP No.19510 of 2017
1. Mr. M. Krishnan
2. Mrs. Boopathy
3. Mr. Ravichandran @ Yesu
4. Mr. Manivannan
5. Mr. K. Prabhu @ Aasai Thambi .. Petitioners
Vs
Mr. M. Madhisiva .. Respondent

¶7

PRAYER: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, to set aside the order and decreetal order dated 14.10.2017 and the consequential order dated 30.10.2017 in I.A. No.10817 of 2017 in O.S. No. 4926 of 2016 on the file of the III Assistant City Civil Court, Chennai by allowing the revision.

¶8

For Petitioners : Mr. J. Parthasarathy

¶9

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶10

¶11

O R D E R

¶12

This Civil Revision Petition is filed to set aside the order and decreetal order dated 14.10.2017 and the consequential order dated 30.10.2017 in I.A. No.10817 of 2017 in O.S. No. 4926 of 2016 passed by the III Assistant City Civil Court, Chennai.

¶13

The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that an order was passed on 14.10.2017 by the court below, allowing the application filed by the petitioners, to set aside the ex-parte order dated 14.07.2017 in the suit, on payment of cost. The said application was posted on 30.10.2017 for reporting compliance. On 30.10.2017, since the petitioners were called absent and also failed to comply with the order, the court below dismissed the Interlocutory Application. Challenging both the orders, the petitioners have filed this revision petition.

¶14

The learned counsel further submitted that the petitioners undertake to pay the cost imposed by the trial court,

¶15

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶16

¶17

however, have not filed an application seeking for extension of time, under Section 148 of Code of Civil Procedure.

¶18

In view of the above submission of the learned counsel

¶19

for the petitioners, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed, with liberty

¶20

to file an appropriate application under Section 148 of CPC, for extension

¶21

of time, within a period of one week from the date of receipt of a copy
of this order. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition is
closed. No order as to costs.
14.11.2017
Index : Yes/ No
Speaking order/ Non speaking order

¶22

avr To The III Assistant City Civil Court, Chennai

¶23

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶24

¶25

D. KRISHNAKUMAR J.,

¶26

avr

¶27

CRP (PD) No. 4160 of 2017
and
CMP No.19510 of 2017
14.11.2017

¶28

http://www.judis.nic.in

M.Krishnan v. M.Madhisiva

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.Krishnan v. M.Madhisiva

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

Sri Parani Agencies Vs D.Sudha,W/O.v.Dhandapani

Pakkiri Shankar Vs K.A. Vincent

M.E.Mariyappan Vs M.S.Dhanasingh (Deceased)

Bagyalakshmi Vs Bank of India

Dr. M. Meerabhai, Vs R. Janarthan

K. Duraisamy Vs E. Kuppusamy