Disposed

G.Geetha Ramani v. Sirajudeen

Madras HC16 Apr 2018CRP(MD)/852/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madras High Court considered a Civil Revision Petition challenging a judgment and interim order. Instead of deciding the merits, the Court granted liberty to file an application for additional documents in the pending second appeal and closed the revision petition.

What did the court decide?

Liberty granted to file application for additional documents in the pending second appeal (S.A. No. 138 of 2018); revision petition closed.

G.Geetha Ramani Vs Sirajudeen — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Madras HC (2018)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 16.04.2018

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.V.MURALIDARAN

¶6

C.R.P.(MD)(PD)No.852 of 2018

¶7

G.Geetha Ramani .. Petitioner / Petitioner / Appellant

Vs.

1.Sirajudeen

2.Basheer Ahamed

Venkatraman (died)

3.Eswaran .. Respondents 1 to 3 /Respondents 1 to 3 / Respondents 1 to 3 4.Rajam 5.Uma 6.Abirami .. Respondents 4 to 6/ Respondents 4 to 6

¶13

(Respondents 5 and 6 are the legal representatives of the deceased respondent Venkatraman and already impleaded in the appeal suit as per order, dated 15.02.2017 made in I.A.No.25 of 2017)

¶14

PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, praying to set aside the common judgment and decree, dated 07.02.2018 made in I.A.No.132 of 2013, in A.S.No.70 of 2011 on the file of the Additional Sub Court, Dindigul.

¶15

For Petitioner : Mr. A.Saravanan

¶16

ORDER

¶17

This Civil Revision Petition has been filed, against the common judgment and decree, dated 07.02.2018 made in I.A.No.132 of 2013, in A.S.No.70 of 2011 on the file of the learned Additional Sub Judge, Dindigul.

¶18

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2. Challenging the order dated 31.12.2003, made in O.S.No.487 of 2003, on the file of the learned II-Additional District Munsif,

¶19

¶20

Dindigul, the petitioner filed an appeal in A.S.No.70 of 2011, on the file of the learned Additional Sub Judge, Dindigul, along with I.A.No.132 of 2013 in A.S.No.70 of 2011, for receiving the additional documents. In both cases, after considering the facts and other circumstances, the learned Additional Sub Judge, Dindigul dismissed the appeal in A.S.No.70 of 2011 as well as the I.A.No.132 of 2013 in A.S.No.17 of 2011.

¶21

I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner and perused the materials placed on record.

¶22

Challenging the said judgement, dated 07.02.2018, in A.S.No.70 of 2011, the revision petitioner preferred second appeal in S.A.No.138 of 2018 and the same is pending before this Court and also challenged the order made in I.A.No.132 of 2013 in A.S.No.70 of 2011 by way of filing this Civil Revision Petition.

¶23

Considering the nature of the interlocutory application, liberty is given to the revision petitioner to file an application to receive additional documents, which was sought for in I.A.No.132 of 2013, in the above said second appeal in S.A.No.138 of 2018, which is pending before this Court.

¶24

With the above direction, this Civil Revision Petition is closed. No Costs.

¶25

Sd/-

¶26

Assistant Registrar(T&P)

¶27

/True Copy/

¶28

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶29

¶30

The Additional Subordinate Judge, Dindigul.

¶31

- 1 cc TO Mr.A.Saravanan , Advocate in SR No. 61571

¶32

PJL

¶33

AE/JC/SAR1/07.05.2018/2P/3C

¶34

C.R.P.(MD)(PD)No.852 of 2018(NPD)

¶35

16.04.2018

¶36

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

G.Geetha Ramani v. Sirajudeen

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

G.Geetha Ramani v. Sirajudeen

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

Victor Jesudoss, M/a 50 Years, Vs the State Rep by Its

Munichandrappa Vs State Rep by

Thirumalai Kumar Vs Ganapathy Narayanan

Bharath Padmanabhan Vs State by

Jalaludeen Vs Rajkumar

Jhansi Rani Vs K.Janakiammal