V. Hemalatha v. v. Guru
Case brief
What is this about?
The High Court of Madras dismissed the Civil Revision Petition filed to challenge an order returning an application for lack of maintainability. The petitioner was denied immediate relief but granted liberty to move the lower court with an explanation within two weeks.
What did the court decide?
Petitioner granted liberty to represent the application before the court below with explanation within two weeks; original application and memo returned.
What the court decided
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Date: 19.3.2018
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.KRISHNAKUMAR
C.R.P.(PD) No.1006 of 2018
and C.M.P.No.5366 of 2018
V.Hemalatha ... Petitioner
Vs.
V.Guru .. Respondent
This Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of
Constitution of India against the docket order, dated 2.3.2018 passed in the
un-numbered I.A. of 2018 and memo in O.P.No.1892 of 2016 on the file of VI
Additional Judge, Family Court, Chennai.
For Petitioner : Mr.Ralph V.Manohar
O R D E R
According to the petitioner, O.P.No.1892 of 2016 has been filed by the petitioner. In the said O.P., the petitioner has filed an application before the VI Additional Judge, Family Court, Chennai. However, the said application was returned with an endorsement that how the petition is maintainable at P.W.1 cross stage. Challenging the same, the present Civil http://www.judis.nic.in revision petition is filed before this Court.
Issues for consideration
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the Civil Revision Petition against an interlocutory order returning an application for maintainability should be entertained without explanation.
Whether the petitioner was granted liberty to move the court below to explain the maintainability of the underlying application.
Parties & counsel
- petitioner
V. Hemalatha
- respondent
V. Guru
Coram
D. KRISHNAKUMAR
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court