Dismissed

A.Alexander, v. the State of Tamil Nadu

Madras HC22 Jan 2018WMP(MD)/186/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madurai Bench of Madras High Court dismissed a review petition filed under Order 47 Rule 1 r/w. Section 114 CPC. The Court held that the petitioner had no locus standi to file for review as the challenged order was passed in her favour. Observ remarks on related procedural matters.

What did the court decide?

Review petition dismissed with no costs and connected petition closed.

A.Alexander, Vs the State of Tamil Nadu — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Madras HC (2018)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 23.11.2018

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN

¶6

REV.APLW[MD]No.186 of 2018 in C.R.P.PD[MD]No.534 of 2017 and C.M.P.[MD]No.11451 of 2018

¶7

Geetha Anand

¶8

: Petitioner/ Respondent

¶9

Vs.

¶10

1.R.Alagukumar 2.S.R.Subbiah : Respondents/ Petitioners

¶11

PRAYER: Review Application filed under Order 47 Rule 1 r/w. Section 114 of the Civil Procedure Code, praying to set aside the order rendered by the Court in C.R.P.(PD)(MD)No.534 of 2017 dated 04.10.2018 and allow the review petition.

¶12

PRAYER C.R.P.(PD)(MD)No.534 of 2017:

¶13

Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, to set aside the fair and decreetal order dated 20.10.2014 made in I.A.No.199 of 2014 in O.S.No.47 of 2012 on the file of Distict Munsif Cum Judicial Magistrate Court, Bodinayakkanur and allow this revision.

¶14

For Petitioner : Mr.R.Suriyanarayanan

¶15

O R D E R

¶16

C.R.P.[PD][MD]No.534 of 2017, filed by the plaintiffs in O.S.No.47 of 2012, on the file of the District Munsif Court, Bodinayakkanur, was dismissed by me on 04.10.2018. To review the same, the respondent in the Civil Revision Petition has filed this petition.

¶17

2.I am of the view that the respondent has no locus standi to file this review petition, because the Civil Revision Petition ended in her favour. Therefore, this review petition is dismissed.

¶18

3.But then, the learned Counsel for the petitioner pointed out https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ that the order passed against the dead person was the order setting aside the ex-parte decree. There is a typographical

¶19

¶20

omission in paragraph No.4 and the same is clarified. He would also point out that even though, this Court permitted the revision petitioners to get themselves impleaded as plaintiffs in O.S.No.47 of 2012, the case bundle is presently not available and it appears that the said suit was dismissed for default on 08.09.2015. This aspect was not brought to my notice by the revision petitioners. Therefore, the direction given by this Court will come into play only on the said suit being restored. If the case bundle is missing, with the permission of the Court below, it can be reconstructed.

¶21

4.With these observations, the Review Petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶22

Sd/-

¶23

Assistant Registrar (CS-III)

¶24

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶25

¶26

THE DISTICT MUNSIF CUM JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, BODINAYAKKANUR.

¶27

+1CC TO Mr.R.SURIYANARAYANAN, Advocate, Sr No.96621

¶28

ORDER MADE IN REV.APLW[MD]No.186 of 2018 23.11.2018

¶29

¶30

MS/VR-MMS/SAR-4/26.11.2018/2P.3C

¶31

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

A.Alexander, v. the State of Tamil Nadu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

A.Alexander, v. the State of Tamil Nadu

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

P.Koodalingam, Vs the Joint Director (Personal)

H.Premkumar, S/O.Harikrishnan Vs the District Collector

P.Muthammal, Vs the Managing Director

The General Manager Vs the Presiding Officer

U.Sugumaran, S/O.Urangapuli Vs the Principal Secretary

B.Mareeswaran, S/O.Bagavathi Vs the Managing Director