Dismissed

S.Elavarasan v. a.Sridhar

Madras HC14 Nov 2019CRP/3677/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed this civil revision petition filed under Article 227 seeking directions to dispose of an interim application. It held that invocation of Article 227 was inappropriate as no prejudice arose to the petitioners due to the pendency of an application filed by the opposing party.

What did the court decide?

The revision petition was dismissed; the connected miscellaneous petition was also dismissed.

S.Elavarasan Vs a.Sridhar — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Madras HC (2019)

¶1

C.R.P.(PD) No.3677 of 2019

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 14.11.2019

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE R. SURESH KUMAR

¶6

C.R.P.(PD) No.3677 of 2019

1.S.Elavarasan

2.E.Vijayalakshmi

... Petitioners

-Vs-

Prayer : Civil Revision Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to direct the learned District Munsif at Sankarapuram to dispose of I.A.No.1283 of 2018 in O.S.No.190 of 2018 pending on the file of the learned District Munsif at Sankarapuram within the time frame to be fixed by this Hon'ble Court.

¶12

O R D E R

¶13

This revision petition has been filed seeking a prayer to direct the learned District Munsif at Sankarapuram to dispose of I.A.No.1283 of 2018 in O.S.No.190 of 2018 pending on the file of the learned District Munsif at Sankarapuram within the time frame to be fixed by this Hon'ble Court.

¶14

Before the Court below, the respondents / plaintiffs filed O.S.No.190 of 2018, where the present I.A.No.1283 of 2018 was filed by the respondents / plaintiffs seeking for interim injunction. In the said application, though the respondents / revision petitioners seems to have filed counter, it has been time and again posted for enquiry at the request of the respondents / plaintiffs and therefore, the revision petitioners, who were the respondents therein and also defendants in

¶15

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶16

Page 1 of 3

¶17

C.R.P.(PD) No.3677 of 2019

¶18

the suit, has filed this revision petition with the aforesaid prayer.

¶19

I have heard Mr.G.Balamanikandan, learned counsel for the revision petitioners / plaintiffs and also perused the materials placed on record.

¶20

Since the said I.A., in question was not filed by the revision petitioners and it was filed by the respondents / plaintiffs, and if at all the respondents / plaintiffs want to pursue the said I.A., it is for them to take steps to pursue the I.A., at the earliest and if it is not pursued and for whatever be the reasons it is adjourned by the learned Judge, no prejudice would be caused to the revision petitioners, who are only the respondents against whom no interim order has been passed. Therefore, these revision petitioners cannot seek the present prayer, that too invoking Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

¶21

Accordingly, this revision petition fails and the same is dismissed. No

¶22

costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is also dismissed.

¶23

14-11-2019

¶24

Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No KST

¶25

¶26

The District Munsif at Sankarapuram

¶27

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶28

Page 2 of 3

¶29

C.R.P.(PD) No.3677 of 2019

¶30

R. SURESH KUMAR, J.

¶31

KST

¶32

C.R.P.(PD) No.3677 of 2019

¶33

14.11.2019

¶34

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶35

Page 3 of 3

S.Elavarasan v. a.Sridhar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S.Elavarasan v. a.Sridhar

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

Malarkodi Vs Ayyasamy

Anusuya Vs D.Selvaraj

T.v.Shanmugam Vs N.Ramesh

S.Palayam Vs v.Murugasen

R.Devanathan Vs S.Nandhini

V.Sujatha Vs B.Vijayavelu