Allowed

A/M.Sri Madhu Mariammanswami v. the State of Tamil Nadu

Madras HC27 Aug 2018CRP/209/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a civil revision petition, the Madras High Court allowed the appeal against the rejection of an interim application to record the death of a defendant. The court stated the trial court lacked justification to reject the application when statutory permissions and prior liberty to apply existed.

What did the court decide?

Order I.A.No.20 of 2012 in O.S.No.50 of 2002 set aside. Additional District Munsif directed to pass appropriate orders within two weeks.

A/M.Sri Madhu Mariammanswami Vs the State of… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Madras HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 27.08.2018

¶3

CORAM:

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.S.RAMESH

¶5

C.R.P.(PD)No.209 of 2015 and M.P.No.1 of 2015

¶6

A/M.Sri Madhu Mariammanswami Ettimadai Pudur,
Represented by its Hereditary Trustees
1.Natesa Goundar
2.Marimuthu
....Petitioners/Plaintiffs
Vs.
1.The State of Tamilnadu,
Represented by
The District Collector, Namakkal.
2.The Revenue Divisional Officer,
Thiruchengode, Tiruchengode Town.
3.The Tahsildar,
Tiruchengode,
Tiruchengode Town.
4.Lakshmi
A. Rasappan (Died)
5.Ponnuvel, Village Administrative Officer,
Seetharampalayam Group Village,
Tiruchengode Taluk, Namakkal District.
6.The Commissioner,
Tiruchengode Municipalaity,
Tiruchengode Town,
Namakkal District.
7.Arunnath
8.Rajeswari
...Respondents/Defendants

¶7

Prayer:

¶8

Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against fair and decreetal order in

¶9

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶10

I.A.No.20 of 2012 in O.S.No.50 of 2002 dated 03/07/2014 on the file of the Additional District Munsif Court, Tiruchengode.

¶11

For Petitioners/Plaintiffs : Mr.P.Valliappan

¶12

For Respondents/Defendants : No Appearance

¶13

****** ORDER

¶14

The present Civil Revision Petition is filed against the rejection of the petitioners application under Order 1 Rule 10 (2) seeking for recording the death of the 5^th defendant.

¶15

Heard Mr.P.Valliappan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, though notice has been served on the respondents and their names were printed in the cause list on 20.08.2018, none appeared on their behalf and hence, the petition came to be listed today. Even today, there is no representation on behalf of the respondents 7 and 8 herein.

¶16

Earlier, when the petitioners had filed a memo to record the death of the 5^th defendant, the learned Additional District Munsif, Tiruchengode, by order dated 22.10.2010 had rejected the said memo. Aggrieved against the same, the petitioners herein filed a revision in C.R.P.(PD).No.4562 of 2010 and by an order dated 06.09.2011, the petitioners were granted liberty to make out an appropriate application seeking for recording the death of the 5^th defendant. It is in this background that the present impugned application in I.A.No.20 of 2012 came to be passed. It is needless to point out that the said application came to be filed on the strength of the liberty granted by this court in its order passed in C.R.P.(PD).No.4562 of 2010, dated 06.09.2011.

¶17

Order 1 Rule 10(2) of CPC also enables the petitioner to make out such an application. While that being so, there cannot be any justification on the part of the Court below to reject the petitioner's application on the ground that the petitioners earlier memo came to be rejected. While the law permits the petitioners to make out such an application and this court had also granted liberty to the petitioner herein to make out such an application, I do not find any justification by the Trial Court in rejecting the petitioner's request by the respondents.

¶18

In the light of the above observations, the fair and decreetal order in I.A.No.20 of 2012 in O.S.No.50 of 2002, dated 03.07.2014 passed by the learned Additional District Munsif Court, Tiruchengode is set aside. Consequently, the learned Additional District Munsif is called upon to take up the application in I.A.No.20 of 2012, in O.S.No.50 of 2002, dated 03.07.2014 and pass appropriate orders, in the light of the

¶19

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶20

above observations, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶21

With the above observations, the Civil Revision Petition stands allowed. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.

¶22

Sd/-

¶23

Assistant Registrar(CO)

¶24

//True Copy//

¶25

Sub Assistant Registrar
To
1.The District Collector, Namakkal.
2.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Thiruchengode.
3.The Tahsildar, Tiruchengode.
4.Village Administrative Officer, Seetharampalayam Group Village,
Tiruchengode Taluk, Namakkal District.
5.The Commissioner, Tiruchengode Municipalaity,
Namakkal District.
6.The Section Officer,
VR Section,
High Court, Madras(2 copies)
+1cc to Mr.P.Valliappan, Advocate sr.no.58550

¶26

C.R.P.(PD)No.209 of 2015 br(co) nr 25/09/2018

¶27

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

A/M.Sri Madhu Mariammanswami v. the State of Tamil Nadu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

A/M.Sri Madhu Mariammanswami v. the State of Tamil Nadu

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

T.Shanthi Vs Jai Krishnan

J. Radhakrishnan Vs Krishnamurthy

Mr.Karthikeyan Babus/O Mr.Babu Vs Mrs. Ramya Ganapahty

Vijay Rajmohan Vs Devesh Chaturvedi

Ram Manohar Logia Died Vs Sakkubai Ammal

M.S. Thomas Muthukumar Vs G. Ravi