Allowed

Arunchalam @ Arun v. Ambika

Madras HC21 Aug 2018CRP/2333/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court, exercising Article 227 jurisdiction, directed the V Additional Family Court, Chennai, to dispose of Order No. 3014 of 2014 within three months. The court allowed the Civil Revision Petition without ordering notice to the respondent, noting the proceedings were prolonged without sufficient cause.

What did the court decide?

The V Additional Family Court, Chennai directed to dispose of O.P. No. 3014 of 2014 within three months from the date of receipt of the copy of this order.

Arunchalam @ Arun Vs Ambika — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Madras HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 21.08.2018

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.S.RAMESH

¶5

C.R.P.(PD).No.2333 of 2018

¶6

M.Arunachalam @ Arun ..Petitioner

¶7

Vs
Ambika ..Respondent

¶8

Prayer : Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to direct the V Additional Family Court, Chennai to dispose of the O.P.No. 3014 of 2014 within a time frame.

¶9

For Petitioner : Mr.G.RM.Palaniyappan O R D E R

¶10

The prayer in the present civil revision petition is to direct the V Additional Family Court, Chennai to dispose of the O.P.No. 3014 of 2014 within a time frame.

¶11

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner that the case in HMOP. No. 747 of 2013 on the file Family Court, Madurai has been transferred to V Additional Family Court, Chennai and renumbered as O.P.No. 3014 of 2014.

¶12

The limited prayer sought for by the revision petitioner is that though the H.M.O.P. No. 747 of 2013 was filed in the year 2013 and counter was also filed, the proceedings are being kept pending for a considerable time. I have also perused the 'A' dairy extract for the period from 27.12.2017 to 24.07.2018, it is seen that the matter has been prolonged without sufficient cause during the said period.

¶13

Since the petitioner's request is limited for the purpose of speedy disposal, notice has not been ordered to the respondent herein and I find no reason as to why prejudiced would be caused to the respondent, if a time limit is stipulated for such disposal. It is also brought to my notice that the case is now at the stage of cross examination by the respondent.

¶14

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

¶15

In the light of the above observation, there shall be a direction to the learned V Additional Judge, Family Court, Chennai to dispose of the O.P. No. 3014 of 2014 within a period of three (3) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶16

With the above directions, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed. No costs.

¶17

Sd/Assistant Registrar(CS V)

¶18

//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
ak
To
The V Additional Judge,
Family Court, Chennai
+1cc to Mr.G.RM.Palaniappan, Advocate, S.R.No.57181
C.R.P.(PD).No.2333 of 2018
AK(co)
rrs 11/09/2018.

¶19

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

Arunchalam @ Arun v. Ambika

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Arunchalam @ Arun v. Ambika

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

K.Madesh, Vs Viswanathan

MRS.KOMALA,50 Years, Vs Mrs.Manjula

S.Periyasmamy M/a 59 Years Vs Suresh Babu

L. Sivaraj Vs Mr. Vetrivel Murugan

T.Shanthi Vs Jai Krishnan

J. Radhakrishnan Vs Krishnamurthy