The Court refused to grant time for complying with an order dated 2018 due to the petitioners' long delay in filing the revision. Criminal Revision was dismissed for default, and the connected miscellaneous petition was closed.
Criminal Revision dismissed for default. Connected miscellaneous petition closed.
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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Dated : 20.09.2018
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.VELMURUGAN
Crl.R.C.No.54 of 2013 and M.P.No.1 of2013
Vs.
This Criminal Revision filed under Section 397 read with 401 of Code of Criminal Procedure against order dated 28.06.2012 passed in M.C.No.44 of 2012 by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Coimbatore.
For Petitioners: Mr.Dalit Tiger C.Ponnusamy
For Respondents: Mr.R.Ravichandran
Govt. Advocate (Crl.Side) for R1
R2 to R 17 Not Served
O R D E R
This Court by an order dated 29.08.2018 ordered private notice returnable by 20.09.2018 (i.e. today).
2 Today, when the matter is called, it is seen that the order of this Court dated 29.08.2018 has not been complied with and the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners seeks time to comply with the same.
3 This Court is not inclined to grant any time as sought for by the learned counsel for the petitioner, since the revision is pending from the year 2013 and still the learned counsel seeks time, even for effecting private notice as ordered by this Court.
4 Accordingly, the criminal revision is dismissed for default. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
Sd/-
Assistant Registrar(CS IX)
//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
cgi
To
Thudiyalur Police Station,
Coimbatore.
Crl.R.C.No.54 of 2013 and M.P.No.1 of2013
skv(co) nr 16/10/2018
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioners, who have delayed compliance with the Court's order and filed a revision pending since 2013, deserve to be granted time?
What is the consequence of defaulting the Court's order for private notice?
1 provisions across 1 enactments
P. Mani and others
State and others
P. Velmurugan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
