Review application filed by Kavitha against an order was dismissed as the petitioner was called absent and her counsel expressed lack of interest in prosecuting the matter.
Review application dismissed; consequent miscellaneous petition closed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED:14.06.2018
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE T.RAVINDRAN
Review Application No.33 of 2017
in
S.A.No.225 of 2011
Kavitha ... Review Petitioner
Vs.
... Respondent
Ramasamy
Prayer :
Review Petition filed under Order 47, Rule 1 and 2 read with
Section 114 of C.P.C., against the decree and judgment dated
29.11.2016 and passed in S.A.No.225 of 2011.
For Review Petitioner : No appearance
2
T.RAVINDRAN , J.
O R D E R
No representation for the Review Petitioner. Review Petitioner
called absent.
2.It is found that this Review Application has been adjourned
now and then, at the request of the petitioner's counsel and despite
the same, petitioner's counsel is not interested in prosecuting the matter. No further indulgence is required to be shown.
14.06.2018
mfa
Index:yes
Internet:yes
Review Application No.33 of 2017 in S.A.No.225 of 2011
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Kavitha
Ramasamy
T.RAVINDRAN
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court