Dismissed

The General Manager v. Vasanthi

Madras HC23 Nov 2017CRP/4291/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single judge order dismissing a civil revision petition seeking direction to number and dispose on merits of an ex-parte decree application. The court denied immediate intervention but granted two weeks to re-present papers to the lower court.

What did the court decide?

Liberty granted to re-present papers to lower court within two weeks; matter to be disposed of on merits if in order; CRP dismissed.

The General Manager Vs Vasanthi — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Madras HC (2017)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 23.11.2017

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D. KRISHNAKUMAR

¶6

C.R.P.(NPD).No.4291 of 2017 and CMP.No.20193 of 2017

¶7

The General Manager,
Southern Railways,
Chennai. ..Petitioner
Vs.
1. Vasanthi
2. Minor.Priyadharshini
3. Minor.Ragavi
4. Minor.Balaji
(2, 3 and 4 represented by their mother and
Natural Guardian Vasanthi)
5. Vivekanandhan
6. Kamalammal
7. Kulasekara Chetty
8. Balaji
9. Gajapathy
10. Samiraj
11. Babu
12. Nethaji
13.The District Collector,
Tiruvallur Town and Taluk,
Tiruvallur District. ..Respondents
Prayer : Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the

¶8

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶9

¶10

Constitution of India to direct the Learned I Additional District Judge at Thiruvallur to number the Petition and dispose of the same on merits filed by the petitioner in I.A.Diary No.537 of 2017 in O.S.No.125 of 2011.

¶11

For Petitioner : Mr.M.Vijay Anand

¶12

O R D E R

¶13

According to the revision petitioner, the respondents 1 to 6 have filed a suit in OS.No.125 of 2011 against the revision

¶14

petitioner and others. In the aforesaid suit, ex-parte decree was passed. According to the revision petitioner, only on receipt of EP notice, the revision petitioner came to know about the ex-parte decree. Hence, the revision petitioner has filed an application to set

¶15

aside the ex-parte decree. The trial court has returned the papers with endorsement how the petition is maintainable since decree was passed. Without re-presenting the papers, the revision petitioner

¶16

has filed the present Civil Revision Petition before this Court.

¶17

At this stage, this Court cannot entertain the Civil Revision Petition. However, liberty is granted to the revision

¶18

petitioner to re-present the papers to the court below within a period of two weeks. Further, if it is in order and the court below is satisfied, the same shall be numbered and the matter may be

¶19

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶20

¶21

decided in accordance with law.

¶22

The Civil Revision Petition is dismissed with above

¶23

observations. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed. No costs.

¶24

The Registry is directed to return the original
impugned order to the learned counsel for the revision petitioner
after obtaining a copy of the same.
23.11.2017
Speaking/Non-speaking order
Index : Yes/No
Internet : Yes/No
lok

¶25

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶26

¶27

D.KRISHNAKUMAR. J,

¶28

lok

¶29

¶30

The Learned I Additional District Judge, Thiruvallur.

¶31

CRP.(NPD).No.4291 of 2017
and CMP.No.20193 of 2017

¶32

23.11.2017

¶33

http://www.judis.nic.in

The General Manager v. Vasanthi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The General Manager v. Vasanthi

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

N. Rajaji Vs B. Chithambaram

Dr. R. Murali, Vs S. Leonard Vasanth

M/S. Indus Towers Ltd., Vs B. Muniyandi

K.M.Goodu Sahib Vs Janaf kha Rasith Ali

R.v.Sathyamoorthy Vs S.Gothandapani

K. Sivasankari Kumaraguru Vs K. Karunakara Pandiyan