Dismissed

L.Kannan v. M.Kuppusamy

Madras HC19 Mar 2018CRP/1008/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a Civil Revision Petition filing under Article 226 challenging a dismissal of an application to set aside an ex-parte order in a rent control suit. The court found no case to entertain the revision as the lower court was correct in dismissing the restoration application.

What did the court decide?

Civil Revision Petition dismissed. No costs. Connected miscellaneous petition closed.

L.Kannan Vs M.Kuppusamy — Landlord and Tenant | Madras HC (2018)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 19.03.2018

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE D. KRISHNAKUMAR

¶6

CRP(NPD).No.1008 of 2018 and

¶7

C.M.P.No.5379 of 2018
L.Kannan .. Petitioner
Vs.
M.Kuppusamy .. Respondent

¶8

PRAYER : Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the fair and final order dated 08.01.2018 made in I.A.No.6 of 2018 in R.C.O.P.No.32 of 2014 passed by the learned I Additional District Munsif, Erode and prays to set aside the same.

¶9

For Petitioner : Mr.B.Kumarasamy

¶10

- - - *

¶11

O R D E R

¶12

The Civil Revision Petition is taken up for final disposal at the admission stage itself.

¶13

2.According to the revision petitioner, the petitioner has filed an

¶14

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶15

¶16

application to set aside the exparte order passed against the petitioner to condone the delay in presenting the said petition. The above said condone delay application was dismissed on 03.03.2017 and the petitioner preferred CRP (NPD) No.1320 of 2017 before this Court and the same was allowed by this Court on 11.04.2017. The respondent filed E.P.No.55 of 2016, pursuant to the exparte order dated 06.06.2016 and ordered for delivery of possession of the property on 20.06.2017. Thereafter, the exparte order dated 06.06.2016 passed in R.C.O.P.No.32 of 2014 was set aside by the Court in CRP.(NPD). No.1320 of 2017 dated 03.03.2017.

¶17

3.The respondent who obtained the exparte order forcibly has taken possession of the property and he has also unlawfully obtained electricity service connection for that portion on 20.05.2017. Hence, the petitioner has filed a petition under Section 18-A of TN.B(L&R) Act and Order 26 Rule 9 & 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure to appoint Advocate Commissioner and directing him/her to note down the physical features and submit the report.

¶18

4.The petitioner already filed an application in I.A.No.546 of 2017 for restoration of the portion of the property, which was occupied by the respondent is still pending before the Court below. The Court

¶19

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶20

¶21

below has rightly dismissed the application in I.A.No.6 of 2018 in R.C.O.P.No.32 of 2014 filed by the petitioner. Hence, no case is made

¶22

out to entertain the Civil Revision Petition.

¶23

5.Therefore, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No costs.

¶24

Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶25

19.03.2018
Speaking/Non-Speaking order
Index :Yes/No
Internet:Yes/No
ah
To
The I Additional District Munsif,
Erode.

¶26

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶27

¶28

D. KRISHNAKUMAR J.,

¶29

¶30

CRP(NPD).No.1008 of 2018

¶31

19.03.2018

¶32

http://www.judis.nic.in

L.Kannan v. M.Kuppusamy

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

L.Kannan v. M.Kuppusamy

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

P.Palanivel, Vs G.Baskaran

Md. Kabeer Ahmed Vs President

B. Omprakash Varma Vs Ragu Baskar

K.Kumar Vs Settu

Subathrai Vs Krishnammal

V. Hemalatha Vs v. Guru