The High Court of Judicature at Madras dismissed the Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution as infructuous because the relief sought had already become ineffective due to a subsequent order passed in a connected petition.
Civil Revision Petition dismissed as infructuous.
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 : 13.02.2019
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.SARAVANAN
C.R.P(PD).No.532 of 2014
and
M.P.No.1 of 2014
1. Elumalai
2. Ranganathan
3. Natarajan
4. Narayanan ... Petitioners
Vs
Vediayappan ... Respondent
Prayer: Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of
India against the order dated 29.11.2013 in I.A.No.191 of 2011 in O.S.No.936 of
2011 on the file of the District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Chengam Taluk, Tiruvannamalai.
For Petitioners : Mr.A.K.Rajaraman for R.Sathishkumar For Respondent : Mr.C.Munusamy
2
C.SARAVANAN, J.,
ssn
O R D E R
In view of the order passed in C.R.P.PD.No.584 of 2014, the relief sought
for in this Revision Petition has become infructuous. Accordingly, this Civil Revision Petition is dismissed as infructuous. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
13.02.2019
Index:Yes/No Internet:Yes/No ssn To
The District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Chengam Taluk, Tiruvannamalai.
C.R.P(PD).No.532 of 2014 and M.P.No.1 of 2014
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Elumalai
Ranganathan
Natarajan
Narayanan
Vediayappan
C.Saravanan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
