Disposed

Mani, v. St.Adithan @ Rajesh

Madras HC24 Apr 2018CRP(MD)/1564/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court disposed of a civil revision petition challenging an ex parte injunction order. The court directed the trial court to determine the application on merits with an opportunity of hearing within one month and dispose of the suit within two months thereafter.

What did the court decide?

Directed the District Munsif to dispose of the ex parte application on merits and the main suit on merits within specified timelines.

Mani, Vs St.Adithan @ Rajesh — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Madras HC (2018)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 24.04.2018

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.V.MURALIDARAN

¶6

CRP(PD).(MD).No.1564 of 2015 and M.P.(MD) Nos.2 and 3 of 2015

¶7

Mani

¶8

.. Petitioner/Defendant

¶9

Vs.

¶10

ST.Adithan @ Rajesh

¶11

..Respondent/Plaintiff

¶12

PRAYER: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to set aside the fair and decretal order dated 07.07.2015, passed in I.A.No.466 of 2015 in O.S.No.95 of 2015 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Tiruchendur.

¶13

For Petitioner : Mr.G.Prabhu Rajadurai

¶14

For Respondent : Mr.R.J.Karthick

¶15

O R D E R

¶16

The Civil Revision Petition has been preferred to set aside the fair and decretal order dated 07.07.2015, passed in I.A.No.466 of 2015 in O.S.No.95 of 2015 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Tiruchendur.

¶17

2.Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent and perused the materials available on record.

¶18

3.The petitioner, who is the plaintiff in the suit, filed an application in I.A.No.466 of 2015, in which the learned District Munsif, Tiruchendur has granted an order of exparte injunction. Challenging the same, the present Civil Revision Petition (MD). No.1564 of 2015 has been filed by the petitioner/defendant in O.S.No.95 of 2015.

¶19

4.Considering the fact that the interim injunction granted in I.A.No.466 of 2015 is an exparte order, the learned District https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Munsif, Tiruchendur is directed to dispose of the said I.A, by passing appropriate orders, on merits, by giving an opportunity to

¶20

¶21

both the parties, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The learned Trial Judge is directed to pass orders, without being influenced by the exparte order passed in I.A.No.466 of 2015 and without considering the police protection order passed by this court in C.R.P.(MD).No.2266 of 2016, dated 24.04.2018. After passing orders in I.A.No.466 of 2015, the learned District Munsif, Tiruchendur is directed to dispose of the suit in O.S.No.95 of 2015, pending on his file, within a period of two months thereafter.

¶22

In the result, this Civil Revision Petition is disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

¶23

Sd/-

¶24

Assistant Registrar(T&P)

¶25

/True Copy/

¶26

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶27

¶28

1.The District Munsif, Tiruchendur.

¶29

2.The Record Keeper, V.R.Section, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai. (2 Copies)

¶30

1 cc TO Mr.G.Prabhu Rajadurai , Advocate in SR No. 63337

¶31

¶32

AE/SV MMS/SAR2/29.05.2018/2P/5C

¶33

CRP(MD).No.1564 of 2015 24.04.2018

¶34

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

Mani, v. St.Adithan @ Rajesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mani, v. St.Adithan @ Rajesh

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

S.Sathiskumar, M/a 38 Years, Vs R.Thangamani @ Mainavathy

M.Raveendhiren, Vs v.Mohamed Ali

Lakshmi Bai, Vs K.Suresh Kumar

Rameshwari Vs S.Seenivasan

P.Thangavelu, Vs S.Joseph

K. K. Balaji Vs a. Govindan