Quashed

T. Prabakaran v. D. Rajagopal

Madras HC6 Mar 2018CRP(MD)/478/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this Civil Revision Petition under Article 227, the High Court directed the trial court to dispose of a pending suit for declaration and possession within six months due to prolonged delays without valid reasons.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the Principal District Munsif, Aruppukkottai, to dispose of suit O.S.No.294 of 2013 within six months from the date of receipt of this order.

T. Prabakaran Vs D. Rajagopal — Execution and Attachment | Madras HC (2018)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 06.03.2018 CORAM : THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE J.NISHA BANU

¶3

C.R.P.(PD)(MD)No.478 of 2018

1.T.Prabakaran

2.Valarmathi

3.Rajathilagam

.. Petitioners / Defendant 2 to 4

¶8

Vs.

¶9

1.D.Rajagopal ..1st Respondent / Plaintiff 2.Vijayaragavan ..2nd Respondent /1st Defendant

¶10

PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, to direct the learned Principal District Munsif, Aruppukkottai to dispose of the O.S. No.294 of 2013, within a time limit fixed by this Court.

¶11

For Petitioner : Mr.S.Parthasarathy

¶12

ORDER

¶13

The Civil Revision Petition has been filed seeking a direction to the learned Principal District Munsif, Aruppukkottai to dispose of the O.S. No.294 of 2013, within a stipulated time as fixed by this Court.

¶14

The petitioner would submit that the 1st respondent has filed a suit in O.S.No.294 of 2013 for declaration and for recovery of possession against the petitioners and the second respondent. The petitioners who are the defendants in the suit, filed their written statement, even as early as on 27.11.2013. Though the issues have been framed and the suit is ripe for trial, but the trial Court has not taken the matter for trial.

¶15

The grievance of the revision petitioner is that the 1st respondent is prolonging the matter and the matter is pending from the year 2013 and the same is being adjourned by the trial Court periodically and therefore, the petitioners have come up with this civil revision petition for the aforesaid prayer.

¶16

Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and perused the materials available on record.

¶17

Since the case is for a limited relief of early disposal, no notice need be sent to the respondent.

¶18

A perusal of the 'B' Diary extract would go to show that https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ as stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the case has been adjourned on several occasions without any valid reason.

¶19

¶20

Therefore, this Court, without going into the merits of the allegation raised by the revision petitioner, is inclined to direct the Court below to dispose of the suit in O.S.No.294 of 2013, within a stipulated period.

¶21

In view of the above, the learned Principal District Munsif, Aruppukkottai, is directed to dispose of suit in O.S.No.294 of 2013, on merits and in accordance with law, within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶22

The Civil Revision Petition is ordered accordingly. No costs.

¶23

Sd/ Assistant Registrar (T&P) /True copy/

¶24

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶25

¶26

The Principal District Munsif, Aruppukkottai.

¶27

+1cc to Mr.S.Parthasarathy, Advocate, SR.No.53144

¶28

C.R.P.(NPD)(MD)No.478 of 2018 06.03.2018

¶29

¶30

KK/GT/21.03.2018/SAR-2/2P-3C

¶31

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

T. Prabakaran v. D. Rajagopal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

T. Prabakaran v. D. Rajagopal

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

Mr.M.G.Raja Vs Mrs. S. Kavitha

Magubu Beevi Vs Meerammal

Selvarasu, Vs Sevagaperumal

Mrs.Samadana Sundari Vs Jothi Anthony Santhiyagu

Maheswari Vs R. Thirumalairajan

M.Ramlingam, Vs P.Ramesh @ Manickam