This order credits the petitioner's non-appearance and failure to provide instructions due to returned summons as sufficient grounds to close the civil revision petition without adjudication on merits.
Civil revision petition and connected miscellaneous petition closed. No costs.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 10.10.2017
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.V.MURALIDARAN
CRP(NPD)No.956 of 2003
and C.M.P.No.9953 of 2003
K.Viswambharan
... Petitioner
Vs.
I.Selvam ... Respondent
Prayer: Civil Revision Petition filed under Section 25 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control Act 18 of 1960 as amended by the Tamil Nadu Act 23 of 1973) against the fair and decretal order dated 27.03.2002 passed in R.C.A.No.367 of 2001 on the file of the VIII Rent Control Appellate Authority, Small Causes Court, Chennai, against the order passed on 28.02.2001 in R.C.O.P.No.1463 of 1998 on the file XIV Rent Controller, Small Causes Court.
For Petitioner :M/s.Rajinish Pathyil and V.Pushpa For Respondents :No Appearance
O R D E R
It is reported by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that in spite of several letters and remainders sent to the
2
M.V.MURALIDARAN,J.
ub
petitioner, the petitioner has not turned up and subsequently, he has sent a letter to the petitioner, that was also returned as “no such
person”. Hence, this civil revision petition may be closed as no instruction from his client.
Index:Yes/No Internet:Yes/No
CRP(NPD)No.956 of 2003
1 provisions across 1 enactments
K.Viswambharan
I.Selvam
M.V.MURALIDARAN
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
