Allowed

Mrs Shanthi v. a. Parvathy

Madras HC3 Dec 2018CRP/1400/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madras High Court disposed of a civil revision petition challenging an order against a deceased defendant. Accepting the petitioner's prayer for expedited disposal of the long-pending suit, the bench directed the District Munsif Court to complete proceedings within three months.

What did the court decide?

The District Munsif Court, Madurantakam is directed to complete the suit proceedings at least within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

Mrs Shanthi Vs a. Parvathy — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Madras HC (2018)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 03.12.2018

¶4

C O R A M

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.S.RAMESH

¶6

C.R.P.[PD] No.1400 of 2015
and
M.P.No.1 of 2015
Mrs.Shanthi ... Petitioner
Vs
1.A.Parvathy
2.Balarama Reddy
3.B.Senthil Kumar
4.Dr.M.Baskaran ... Respondents

¶7

Prayer: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India praying to allow this Civil Revision Petition, set aside the impugned order dated 09.09.2014 passed by the District Munsif Court, Madurantagam in I.A.No.1229 of 2014 in O.S.No.126 of 2011 and dismiss the said petition with costs.

¶8

For Petitioner : Mr.V.Gopalakrisnan For Respondents : Mr.S.Udayakumar

¶9

O R D E R

¶10

The main ground raised in the present Revision Petition is that the

¶11

order under challenge came to be passed against the third defendant, who

¶12

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶13

¶14

already died on 13.09.2014.

¶15

Today when the matter is called, the learned counsel for the petitioner produced a copy of the application in I.A.No. 1493 of 2014 dated 24.09.2014 seeking impleadment of the legal heirs of the third defendant. As such, it cannot be said that the fact of death of the third defendant was not brought to the notice of the trial Court. Since the application has been pending on the date of the consideration of I.A.Nos.1229 & 1230 of 2014, the main ground raised by the petitioner herein may not be correct.

¶16

Nevertheless, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that he has no objection in allowing the applications in I.A.Nos.1229 & 1230 of 2014 and he would submit that since the suit has been filed in the year 2011, which had been kept pending for a very long time, the trial Court may be directed to dispose of the suit as expeditiously as possible. The learned counsel further submitted that he has no objection in having these applications allowed. Hence, no further orders required in this Civil Revision Petition.

¶17

Taking into consideration of the fact that the suit was filed in the year 2011 and the trial had already commenced, the learned District Munsif Court, Madurantakam shall endeavour to complete the suit proceedings

¶18

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶19

¶20

atleast within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The Civil Revision Petition is ordered accordingly.

¶21

Consequently connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. No costs.

¶22

03.12.2018
dh
Index : Yes/No
Internet : Yes/No
To
The District Munsif Court,
Madurantagam

¶23

http://www.judis.nic.in

M.S. RAMESH.J.

dh/vsn

C.R.P.[PD] No.1400 of 2015
03.12.2018

¶28

http://www.judis.nic.in

Mrs Shanthi v. a. Parvathy

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mrs Shanthi v. a. Parvathy

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

Sakithram @ Sridhar Vs Thiru.M.Subramani

P.Ayyamperumal Irs Vs Shri Raja Somasundaram

S.Sarithadevi Aged 38 Yrs Vs Mrs.Lakshmi

S.Mariswari Vs Opathya Jebaraj

S.Maheshswari Vs K.Muthukumar

Parvathi Vs Ele Farms