Mohammed Rafi, v. Leelavathi
Case brief
What is this about?
Revision petition held infructuous and dismissed because the underlying civil suit was disposed of out of court before the impugned order came into effect.
What did the court decide?
Civil revision petition dismissed as having become infructuous; connected miscellaneous petition closed.
What the court decided
C.R.P.(PD)(MD) No.1661 of 2013
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 04.12.2019
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUBRAMANIAN
C.R.P.(PD)(MD) No.1661 of 2013 and M.P(MD) No.1 of 2013
Mohammed Rafi ... Petitioner/1st Respondent/ 1st Defendant -Vs1.Leelavathi ... 1st Respondent/Petitioner/ Plaintiff 2.Saraswathi 3.Shekanaz Rafi ...3rd Respondent/Respondents 2 and 3/Defendants 2 and 3
Prayer: Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to set aside the Fair and Decreetal Order dated 19.07.2013 made in I.A.No.93 of 2013 in O.S.No.100 of 2012 on the file of the Additional Subordinate Judge, Kumbakonam.
For Petitioner : Mr.R.Vijayakumar For R1 : Mr.M.Fernand for Mr.A.Saravanan For R2 & R3 : No appearance
O R D E R
Mr.M.Fernand, learned counsel representing Mr.A.Saravanan, learned counsel appearing for the first respondent would submit that the suit in O.S.No.100 of 2012 itself has been disposed of as settled out of Court. This Revision has been filed against the order made in I.A.No.93 of 2013, which was filed seeking appointment of commissioner for examination of the petitioner/plaintiff at Chennai. Since the suit itself is stated to be disposed of, nothing survives in the revision petition and the revision petition is therefore dismissed as having become infructuous. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
Parties & counsel
- petitioner
Mohammed Rafi
- respondent
Leelavathi
Coram
R.Subramanian
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court