Dismissed

M.Marayee@Marayammal v. K.Kamalathal Died

Madras HC5 Mar 2018CRP/320/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court dismissed a Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 226 as not maintainable because the petitioner failed to implead the legal heirs of deceased defendants in the underlying suit. Liberty was granted to file a fresh application before the trial court.

What did the court decide?

Civil Revision Petition dismissed as not maintainable; liberty granted to file fresh application within one week.

M.Marayee@Marayammal Vs K.Kamalathal Died — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Madras HC (2018)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 05.03.2018

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE D. KRISHNAKUMAR

¶6

CRP (PD) No. 320 of 2018
and
C.M.P. No.1865 of 2018
M. Marayee @ Marayammal .. Petitioner
Vs
K. Kamalathal (Died)
1. C. Kaliammal
2. N. Lakshmi
3. R. Arukkani
4. C. Krishnamoorthi
5. K. Sakthivel
6. C. Kandaswami Gounder
7. K. Rajendran
8. Saradha @ K. Subbulakshmi
9. Poosappan
10.N. Periyaswamy
11.S. Jaganathan
12.P. Kumaraswamy
13.G. Lakshmi
14.P. Rangaswamy
G. Kandaswamy (died)
15.P. Saravanakumar
16.M.Nedunseliyan
17.D. Mallika

¶7

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶8

¶9

P. Saroja

¶10

C. Ramesh

¶11

C. Suresh

¶12

S. Kavitha

¶13

K. Pavayee

¶14

S. Shobha

¶15

S. Amudha .. Respondents

¶16

PRAYER: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, to set aside the fair and decreetal order dated 18.01.2018 made in I.A. No. 53 of 2018 in O.S. No.307 of 2005 on the file of the Principal Subordinate Court, Erode by allowing the Civil Revision

¶17

Petition.

¶18

For Petitioner : Mr.D. Gopal
For Respondents : Mr. N. Manoharan for R1 to 3 & 6
Mr. Guruprasad for R4 & R5
No Appearance for R7 to 24
O R D E R

¶19

This Revision arises against the fair and decreetal order dated

¶20

18.01.2018 made in I.A. No. 53 of 2018 in O.S. No.307 of 2005 on the file

¶21

of the Principal Subordinate Court, Erode.

¶22

The petitioner has filed an Interlocutory Application in I.A.

¶23

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶24

¶25

No.53 of 2018 under Order XVI Rule 6 seeking to summon Tamilnadu Electricity Board to produce the petition mentioned documents. The said application was dismissed by the court below. Against the same, the revision petition is filed before this Court.

¶26

The learned counsel for the respondents 1 to 3 & 6, would

¶27

submit that the aforesaid revision petition is not maintainable, since the petitioner has not arrayed the legal heirs of the deceased defendants/ 7th and 12th respondents herein, who are already parties in the said suit.

¶28

Hence, the application filed by the petitioner is liable to be rejected on the aforesaid ground itself.

¶29

The learned counsel for the petitioner also fairly conceded

¶30

the said fact that the the legal heirs of the deceased defendants/ 7th

¶31

and 12th respondents herein, have not been impleaded.

¶32

On the limited ground, the application filed by the petitioner

¶33

is not maintainable, the petitioner has not impleaded the legal heirs of

¶34

the deceased defendants/ 7th and 12th respondents herein, as parties in

¶35

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶36

¶37

the said application and in the present revision petition. Therefore, the

¶38

application itself is defective. Hence, the application filed by the petitioner is not maintainable and the same is liable to be dismissed. At this stage, the learned counsel for the petitioner seeks one week time to file a fresh application before the court below, and seeks to dispose the said application in accordance with law. It is further prayed that directions may be given to the trial court to dispose of the suit, within a reasonable time otherwise the respondents would protract the suits, which is of the year 1999 and 2005. The learned counsel for the respondents requested this Court to grant opportunity to the respondents to file counter affidavit if the said application is filed by the petitioner

¶39

before the court below.

¶40

Considering the above submissions of the learned counsel

¶41

for the petitioner and the respondents, this Court is inclined to pass the

¶42

following order :-

¶43

Since the application filed by the petitioner itself is defective, the

¶44

Civil Revision Petition is dismissed as not maintainable. However,

¶45

liberty is granted to the petitioner to file a fresh application

¶46

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶47

¶48

before the court below, within a period of one week from the date

¶49

of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶50

On filing of such application, within the said period, the respondents are permitted to file counter affidavit, within a period of one week, from the date of filing the application.

¶51

Thereafter, the court below is directed to dispose of the said
application, within a period of two weeks, thereafter.
7. The Civil Revision Petition is disposed of, with the above
directions. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition is
closed. No costs.
05.03.2018

¶52

Index : Yes/ No

¶53

Speaking order/ Non speaking order [Issue order copy on 08.03.2018]

¶54

avr

¶55

To The Principal Subordinate Court, Erode.

¶56

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶57

¶58

D. KRISHNAKUMAR J.,

¶59

avr

¶60

CRP (PD) No. 320 of 2018
and
C.M.P. No.1865 of 2018

¶61

05.03.2018

¶62

http://www.judis.nic.in

M.Marayee@Marayammal v. K.Kamalathal Died

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.Marayee@Marayammal v. K.Kamalathal Died

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Lakshmi Vs Viswantathan

Jayanthi W/O Chelvadoari Vs Saravanan S/O S. Mani

Aiyulu Vs Sakunthala

Sanguvathi Vs Sankaran Narayanan

Y.Viswanathan Vs Y.Laxman

Mrs.P.Vitto Bai Vs C.Padmavathi Chandrasekaran