Dismissed

P.S.Govindarajan v. Chandrammal

Madras HC5 Feb 2019CRP/2243/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court at Madras heard a Civil Revision Petition under Article 226 against a decree. Due to the absence of all parties and a prior submission regarding property delivery, the Court viewed the dispute as resolved. The petition was dismissed for default, and connected matters closed without separate reasoning.

What did the court decide?

Civil Revision Petition dismissed for default; connected miscellaneous petitions closed. No costs. Order remitted to Subordinate Court, Tirupathur.

P.S.Govindarajan Vs Chandrammal — Property and Title | Madras HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 12.09.2019

¶3

CORAM:

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.PONGIAPPAN

¶5

Civil Revision Petition No.2243 of 2014 and M.P.No.1 of 2014 and M.P.No.1 of 2015

¶6

P.S.Govindarajan

¶7

¶8

Chandrammal

¶9

Baby

¶10

Banumathi

¶11

Maheshwari

¶12

M.Kavitha

¶13

Palani

¶14

R.Murugesan

¶15

M.Prema

¶16

Minor Kavipriya

¶17

10.Minor Kavi Shankari

¶18

11.Minor Harikrishnan

¶19

(Respondents 9 to 11 Represented by Court Guardian P.Vagitha)

¶20

PRAYER: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to set aside the Fair and Decreetal order dated 05.04.2014 passed in E.A.No.59 of 2013 in E.P.No.260 of 2004 in O.S.No.53 of 1998 on the file of Subordinate Court, Tirupathur.

¶21

For Petitioner : No appearance

¶22

For Respondents: R1 to R6, R9 to R11 - No appearance

¶23

The Civil Revision Petition has been preferred against the order dated 05.04.2014 passed in E.A.No.59 of 2013 in E.P.No.260 of 2004 in O.S.No.53 of 1998, on the file of Subordinate Court, Tirupathur.

¶24

On 09.09.2019, when this petition was taken up for hearing, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner made a submission that on 14.05.2019 itself, the property under dispute was handed over to the respondent. In this regard, the learned

¶25

counsel appearing for the respondent prayed one day adjournment for getting instructions from his client. Accordingly, this Court directed the Registry to list the matter on 10.09.2019. Since on 10.09.2019, there was no representation on the side of the petitioner, again this petition was posted on 12.09.2019.

¶26

Today i.e 12.09.2019, when this Civil Revision Petition is came up for hearing, there is no representation from either side. Considering the fact that the learned counsel for the petitioner already submitted that the property under dispute has been handed over to the respondent, I am of the opinion that nothing survives in keeping this Civil Revision Petition further more.

¶27

Hence, this Civil Revision petition is dismissed for default. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

¶28

Assistant Registrar(CCC)

¶29

//True Copy//

¶30

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶31

¶32

The Subordinate Court, Tirupathur.

¶33

Civil Revision Petitio n No.2243 of 2014 and M.P.No.1 of 2014 and M.P.No.1 of 2015

¶34

nrjk[co] srg 04/11/2019

P.S.Govindarajan v. Chandrammal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P.S.Govindarajan v. Chandrammal

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

N.Gurusamy, Vs the State of Tamil Nadu

K.S.Vijayakumar, Vs the Disrict Manager

Mariappan Memorial- Vs the Director of Matriculation-

Mr.P.Sampath Vs v.Ramalingam

Nallappan Vs M.Palanisamy

Dhanraj Kochar Vs Thirumuruga Real Estate