Dismissed

Thangavelu v. Pugazhendhi

Madras HC25 Feb 2019CRP/713/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged the dismissal of applications to reopen a civil case to file an additional written statement under Article 227 of the Constitution. The Court found no infirmity in the lower court's order due to the petition's lack of factual basis and dismissed the revisions.

What did the court decide?

Civil Revision Petitions dismissed; no costs awarded; connected Civil Miscellaneous Petitions closed.

Thangavelu Vs Pugazhendhi — Property and Title | Madras HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED :25.02.2019

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE Ms.JUSTICE P.T.ASHA

¶5

CRP PD.Nos.713 & 714 of 2019
and
C.M.P.Nos.4625 & 4632 of 2019
CRP(PD)No.713 of 2019
Thangavelu ... Petitioner/5 th Defendant/
Petitioner
-vs-
1.Pugazhendhi
2.Saranya ... Respondent Nos 1 & 2/
Plaintiffs/Respondents
3.Masilamani @ Bhoopalan
4.Chokkalingam
5.Kamalakannan
6.Kalaiselvi
7.Munisamy
8.Kumaresan
9.Palani ... Respondents/
Defendants 1 to 4 & 6 to 8/
Respondents
CRP(PD)No.714 of 2019
Thangavelu ... Petitioner/5 th Defendant/
Petitioner
-vs-
1.R.C.Mohanraj ... Respondent No.1/ Plaintiff/
Respondent

¶6

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶7

2.Masilamani @ Bhoopalan

¶8

3.Chokkalingam

¶9

4.Kamalakannan

¶10

5.Kalaiselvi

¶11

6.Munisamy

¶12

7.Kumaresan

¶13

8.Palani

¶14

... Respondents/ Defendants 1 to 4 & 6 to 8/ Respondents

¶15

PRAYER in both CRPs(PD): These Civil Revision Petition are filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, against the order dated 07.12.2018 in I.A.Nos.244 & 243/2018 in O.S.Nos.16 & 15/2012 on the file of III Additional District Court, Vellore at Tirupattur.

¶16

For Petitioner : M/S.K.Chandrasekaran
*****
COMMON ORDER

¶17

The above Civil Revisoin Petitions are filed chalenging the dismissal Order dated 07.12.2018, passed by III Additional District Judge, Vellor, Tirupattur, dismissing the petitions filed by the 5^th defendant, in I.A.Nos.243 & 244 of 2018 in O.S.Nos.15 &16 of 2012, which were filed to reopen the case on the ground that the counsel for the 5^th defendant in the suit has omitted to state certain important facts in the written statement. Challenging the same the revision petitioner is before this Court.

¶18

2.Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶19

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶20

3.From the perusal of the order dated 07.12.2018 in I.A.Nos.243

¶21

and 244 of 2018, it is seen that after the evidence on either side was closed, the matter was posted for plaintiffs arguments. The arguments of D5, D7 and D8 wére heard on 11.09.2018 and thereafter, the matter was posted to 12.09.2018 once again, for arguments. But on 12.09.2018 the plaintiff filed a petition to reopen the case to file amendment application. The same was allowed and the amendment was carried out. Again on 18.09.2018 the plaintiff filed the same petition which was dismissed on 12.10.2018. The matter was thereafter posted for arguments of D3, D4 and the plaintiff, on 24.10.2018. At request, the matter was adjourned to 26.10.2018 since there was no representation on behalf of D3, D4 and the plaintiff. The matter was reserved for Judgment and posted to 09.11.2018, and the parties were permitted to file their written arguments.

¶22

4.At this juncture, the present petitions have been filed to reopen the case of plaintiff's arguments and to file additional written statment. A perusal of the affidavit filed in the said petitions, would clearly show that the petitions are bereft of any details as to why the 5^th defendant seeks to reopen the case to file addittional written statement and what new facts he would like to place in the additional written statement. Except stating in one line that the learned counsel has omitted to state certain facts, there are no other reasons for reopening the

¶23

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶24

plaintiff's side evidence and to file the additional written statememnt.

¶25

In view of the above, I do not find any infirmity in the order

¶26

passed by the court below. Therefore, these Civil Revision Petitions are

¶27

dismissed. No costs. Connected Civil Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.

¶28

25.02.2019
Index : Yes/No
Internet : Yes / No
Speaking/non-speaking order
jrs

¶29

http://www.judis.nic.in

P.T.ASHA.J

jrs

The III Additional District Court,

¶34

Vellore at Tirupattur.
CRP PD.Nos.713 & 714 of 2019
and
C.M.P.Nos.4625 & 4632 of 2019
25.02.2019

¶35

http://www.judis.nic.in

Thangavelu v. Pugazhendhi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Thangavelu v. Pugazhendhi

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

S.Thangavelu Vs Nagamalai Goundar(Died)

V.M.Jawaharlal Vs K.a.Sheela

K.Kirubakaran Vs [email protected]

Kuppu Kounder Vs Subramaniam

Vinoth Cample Vs Mrs. Kalavathi

K.M.Gunasekaran Vs Kalavathy