The Madras High Court allowed the Civil Miscellaneous Petition filed under Order 9 Rule 9 CPC to restore the Civil Revision Petition dismissed for non-prosecution, as the respondents did not object to the restoration.
Civil Miscellaneous Petition allowed; Civil Revision Petition No.1226 of 2007 restored to file and listed for hearing on 19.06.2018.
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
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Civil Appellate Jurisdiction )
Tuesday, the Twenty Fourth day of April Two Thousand and Eighteen
PRESENT
The Hon`ble Dr.Justice ANITA SUMANTH
CMP(MD) No.11438 of 2017 IN CRP(MD) No.1226 of 2007
RAMAKRISHNAN
... PETITIONER
Vs
1 S.R.SUNDARAM
2 S.R.JANAKI
9 B.SWAMINATHAN
(R2 TO R9 REP. BY POWER OF
ATTORNEY R1). ... RESPONDENTS
Prayer in CMP(MD) No.11438 of 2017:
This Civil Miscellaneous Petition is filed under Order 9, Rule 9 of C.P.C. to restore the above Civil Revision Petition in CRP(MD) No.1226 of 2007 which was dismissed for non-prosecution on 24.08.2017 and pass such further or other orders, as this Honourable Court deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.
Prayer in CRP(MD)No.1226/2007 :
This Civil Revision Petition is filed under Section 25 ofd the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent) Control Act, 18/1960 as amended by the Tamil Nadu Act 23/1973, against the fair and decreetal order passed in RCA.No.12/2002 on the file of the Rent Control Appellate Authority/Principal Sub Court, Kumbakonam, dt.21.3.2007, confirming the fair and decreetal order passed in RCOP.No.4/2000 on the file of the Rent Controller / Prl. Dist. Munsif Court, Valangaiman, dt.25.06.2002.
ORDER : This Miscellaneous Petition came up for hearing on this day, upon perusing the material papers and upon hearing the arguments of Mr.M.P.SENTHIL, Advocate for the petitioner and Mr.M.V.KRISHNAN, Advocate for respondents, and the court made the following order:https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/
The learned counsel appearing for respondents 1 to 9 did not
2
express any objection to the restoration of CRP(MD) No.1226 of 2007. Thus, and also for the reasons set out in the affidavit accompanying this petition, this Civil Miscellaneous Petition is allowed and CRP (MD) No.1226 of 2007 is restored to file.
Sd/-
Assistant Registrar (CO)
/True Copy/
Sub Assistant Registrar
TO
COPY TO:-
ORDER DATED : 24.04.2018 HEARING DATE : 19.06.2018 RESTORE CMP(MD) No.11438 of 2017 IN CRP(MD) No.1226 of 2007
https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ TE/SV-MMS/SAR-2 : 07/05/2018 : 2P/6C
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the Civil Miscellaneous Petition filed under Order 9 Rule 9 CPC to restore the dismissed Civil Revision Petition deserves to be allowed.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
RAMAKRISHNAN
S.R.SUNDARAM
S.R.JANAKI
S.R.SIVARAMAN
S.R.SUBRAMANIAN
S.R.MUTHUKRISHNAN
Dr. Justice ANITA SUMANTH
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
