The court dismissed a civil revision petition filed under Section 115 of CPC as infructuous because the third respondent had withdrawn the deposited court amount, leaving no live question for adjudication.
Petition dismissed as infructuous; connected M.L. 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 : 22.03.2019
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE N.SATHISH KUMAR
C.R.P.(N.P.D.)No.1607 of 2008
and
M.P.No.1 of 2008
Kasambu Ammal ...Petitioner
Vs.
1.Amar Chand
2.Ravichandran
3.R.Jegannathan ...Respondents
PRAYER : Civil Revision Petition filed under Section 115 of C.P.C., to set aside the order and decree dated 01.11.2007 made in E.A.No.138 of 2007 in O.S.No.25 of 2002 on the file of the learned Subordinate Judge, Cuddalore.
For Petitioner : Mr.T.R.Rajaraman
For Respondents : Mr.S.Pugalenthi for R1 Mr.M.V.Venkataseshan for R3
ORDER
Today, when the matter is taken up for hearing the learned counsel
for both sides submitted that the third respondent has already withdrawn the
amount, which was lying in the Court deposit and hence, nothing survives for adjudication in this matter.
2
Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
22.03.2019
Internet : Yes / No
Index: Yes / No
Speaking Order / Non-Speaking Order
ms
To
The Subordinate Judge,
Cuddalore.
3
N.SATHISH KUMAR, J.
ms
C.R.P.(N.P.D.)No.1607 of 2008
and
M.P.No.1 of 2008
22.03.2019
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the civil revision petition survives for adjudication given that the respondent has withdrawn the court deposit.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Kasambu Ammal
Amar Chand
Ravichandran
R. Jegannathan
N. Sathish Kumar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
