Remanded

R.T. Seetharaman v. S. Sivakumar

Madras HC26 Mar 2018CRP(MD)/684/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this civil revision petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court directed the Subordinate Judge, Srivilliputtur, to dispose of an impleading application within eight weeks due to repeated adjournments without cause.

What did the court decide?

Direction to dispose of I.A. No. 638 of 2016 in O.S. No. 175 of 2015 within eight weeks on merits.

R.T. Seetharaman Vs S. Sivakumar — Partition | Madras HC (2018)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 26.03.2018

¶4

CORAM :

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE J.NISHA BANU

¶6

C.R.P.(PD)(MD)No.684 of 2018

¶7

R.T.Seetharaman .. Petitioner/Petitioner/proposed 5^th Defendant

¶8

Vs.

¶9

1.S.Sivakumar ..1^st Respondent /1^st Respondent/Plaintiff

¶10

2.Sivaprakasam 3.P.Thangamani 4.P.Rajalakshmi 5.Arunkumar ..Respondents 2 to 5 / Respondents 2 to 5/ Defendants 1 to 4

¶11

PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, to direct the learned Subordinate Judge, Srivilliputtur to dispose of the impleading application in I.A.No.638 of 2016 in O.S.No.175 of 2015, within a time limit fixed by this Court.

¶12

For Petitioner : Mr.M.Thirunavukkarasu

¶13

ORDER

¶14

The Civil Revision Petition has been filed seeking a direction to the learned Subordinate Judge, Srivilliputtur to dispose of the impleading application in I.A.No.638 of 2016 in O.S.No.175 of 2015, within a stipulated time as fixed by this Court.

¶15

The petitioner would submit that the first respondent/ plaintiff has filed a suit in OS.No.175 of 2015 for the relief of partition and separate possession of his 1/5^th share in the suit properties and to declare the settlement deed dated 12.04.2012 executed by the first defendant in favour of defendants 2 and 3 as illegal and the same is not binding the plaintiff. According to the petitioner, he purchased 4/5^th share of the respondents 2 to 5 herein under a registered sale deed dated 19.07.2016 and hence, during pendency of the suit, he filed an Interlocutory application in I.A.No.638 of 2016 to implead him as fifth defendant in the suit on 03.10.2016 and the same is being adjourned by the trial https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Court, periodically. Now the same is posted on 07.04.2018 for filing counter affidavit of the respondents. Apprehending some

¶16

¶17

urgency, the petitioner has come up with this civil revision petition for the aforesaid prayer.

¶18

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

¶19

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

¶20

A perusal of the 'B' Diary extract would go to show that as stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the case has been adjourned for filing counter on several occasions without any valid reason. 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 petition in I.A.No.638 of 2016 in O.S.No.175 of 2015, within a stipulated period.

¶21

In view of the above, the learned Subordinate Judge, Srivilliputtur, is directed to dispose of the petition in I.A.No.638 of 2016 in O.S.No.175 of 2015, on merits and in accordance with law, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶22

The Civil Revision Petition is ordered accordingly.

¶23

No costs.

¶24

Sd/-

¶25

Assistant Registrar(Crl side)

¶26

/True Copy/

¶27

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶28

¶29

The Subordinate Judge Subordinate Court, Srivilliputtur.

¶30

1 cc TO Mr.M.Thirunavukkarasu , Advocate in SR No. 57758

¶31

¶32

AE/SKN RSK/SAR3/11.04.2018/2P/3C

¶33

C.R.P.(PD)(MD)No.684 of 2018

¶34

26.03.2018

¶35

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

R.T. Seetharaman v. S. Sivakumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

R.T. Seetharaman v. S. Sivakumar

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

S. Rani Vs v. Durai

Anthony Arun Raja Vs M.C. Anitha

Santhnam, Vs Seventhan

S. Ambuga Vs S.Veluchamy(Died),v. Alagammal

S.Anandavalli Vs M.Balachandran

Dharmapandian Vs the Christ Church (Csi)