Rajammal v. Kasinathan
Case brief
What is this about?
Court dismissed Civil Revision Petition as the underlying suit was decreed and the subsequent appeal was dismissed for default without restoration, rendering the petition infructuous.
What did the court decide?
Civil Revision Petition dismissed as infructuous without costs.
What the court decided
C.R.P.(PD)(MD)No.1634 of 2013
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 11.12.2019 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.SUBRAMANIAN C.R.P.(PD)(MD)No.1634 of 2013 and M.P(MD)No.1 of 2013
Rajammal
... Petitioner
Vs.
Kasinathan ... Respondent
PRAYER : This Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, to set aside the fair and decreetal order, dated 06.06.2013 in I.A. No.14 of 2013 in O.S. No.28 of 2006 on the file of the Principal Sub Court, Kumbakonam.
For Petitioner : Mr.K.Govindarajan For Respondent : Mr.V.Chandrasekar
ORDER
This Civil Revision Petition has been filed against the order, dated 06.06.2003, in and by which the application filed by the defendant for recalling P.W.1 and P.W.2 was allowed on condition. It is now stated that the original suit, namely, O.S.No.28 of 2006 was decreed and the appeal against the said judgment and decree was filed in A.S.No.47 of 2016. It is also stated that the said appeal was dismissed for default and no restoration has been sought for. Therefore, nothing survives in this Civil Revision Petition. Hence, this Civil Revision Petition is dismissed as infructuous. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
Parties & counsel
- petitioner
Rajammal
- respondent
Kasinathan
Coram
R.SUBRAMANIAN
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court