Dismissed

S.T.S.Madhanlal v. R.Subha

Madras HC1 Mar 2018CRP/658/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 to set aside a Family Court return endorsement denying permission for POA representation. Court refused to entertain revision directly but granted liberty to re-present the application for consideration by the Family Court.

What did the court decide?

Liberty granted to re-present the un-numbered Interlocutory Application; Family Court directed to consider it if in order with explanation and to number it.

S.T.S.Madhanlal Vs R.Subha — Service and Employment | Madras HC (2018)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 01.03.2018

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE D. KRISHNAKUMAR

¶6

CRP (PD) No. 658 of 2018
and
C.M.P. No.3403 of 2018
S.T.S. Madhanlal .. Petitioner
Vs
R. Subha .. Respondent

¶7

PRAYER: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the

¶8

Constitution of India, seeking to set aside the return endorsement made by the learned V Family Court, Chennai in the unnumbered Interlocutory Application filed in HMOP No. 4793 of 2016 for permission to represent the Power of Attorney on behalf of the petitioner and directing to conduct the case as per law and pass such further orders.

¶9

This revision petition is filed seeking to set aside the return

¶10

endorsement made by the learned V Family Court, Chennai in the

¶11

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶12

¶13

unnumbered Interlocutory Application filed in HMOP No. 4793 of 2016 for permission to represent the Power of Attorney on behalf of the petitioner and directing to conduct the case as per law.

¶14

The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that

¶15

the respondent has filed an application in M.C. No.113 of 2017, to recognize the petitioner as the Power of Attorney Holder of the petitioner to represent his case. The said application was presented on 08.02.2018 and the same was returned on the ground of maintainability,

¶16

since the petition was at the stage of trial. Against the same, the petitioner has filed the present revision petition before this Court.

¶17

Without representing the said application, the petitioner

¶18

has preferred this revision. At this stage, this Court is not inclined to

¶19

entertain the Civil Revision Petition. However, liberty is granted to the petitioner to re-present the un-numbered Interlocutory Application filed in HMOP No. 4793 of 2016. If the said application is re-presented, the V Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Chennai is directed to consider

¶20

the same, if it is otherwise in order and if satisfactory explanation is

¶21

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶22

¶23

given, number the application, in accordance with law.

¶24

The Civil Revision Petition is disposed of, with the above

¶25

direction. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
No costs.
01.03.2018
Index : Yes/ No
Speaking order/ Non speaking order
[Issue order copy on 05.03.2018]
avr
To
The V Additional Principal Judge,
Family Court,
Chennai

¶26

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶27

¶28

D. KRISHNAKUMAR J.,

¶29

avr
CRP (PD) No. 658 of 2018
and
C.M.P. No.3403 of 2018
01.03.2018

¶30

http://www.judis.nic.in

S.T.S.Madhanlal v. R.Subha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S.T.S.Madhanlal v. R.Subha

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

V.Raja Vs v.Krishnan

Vijayarajendran Vs Santhakumar

Seenappa @ Srinivasiah Vs R.Krishnappa

Paramanandam Vs Pushpalatha

C.Ramachandran Vs Sree Srinivasa Balaji Papers

A.T.Shanmugam Vs P.Gandhimathi