A Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 CPC in the Madras High Court was dismissed for default because the petitioners did not appear to argue against the respondent's representation that the civil dispute had been settled out of court.
Dismissing the petition and closing the connected miscellaneous petition with no costs.
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.
CRP PD(MD)No.2351 of 2013
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 26.11.2019 CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.VAIDYANATHAN
CRP PD(MD)No.2351 of 2013 and M.P.(MD)No.2 of 2013
1.A.Tajeyusha 2.M.Abbas ... Petitioners/Respondents/Respondents Vs.
S.R.Fathima Beevi ... Respondent/Petitioner/Petitioner
PRAYER :This petition is filed under Article 227 of Civil Procedure Code, against the order passed in I.A.No.171 of 2013 in R.C.O.P.No.78 of 2013, dated 29.11.2013, on the file of the learned Rent Controller cum District Munsif, Madurai Town, Madurai.
For Petitioners : No Appearance For Respondents : Mr.A.B.Prabhakar
O R D E R
This Civil Revision Petition has been filed challenging the order passed in I.A.No.171 of 2013 in R.C.O.P.No.78 of 2013, dated 29.11.2013, on the file of the learned Rent Controller cum District Munsif, Madurai Town, Madurai.
Assistant Registrar (CS-II)
// True Copy //
Sub Assistant Registrar(CS)
1/2
CRP PD(MD)No.2351 of 2013
MPK
To
The Rent Controller cum District Munsif, Madurai Town, Madurai.
+1 CC to Mr.S. VELLAICHAMY, Advocate ( SR-101455[F]dated 26/11/2019 )
CRP PD(MD)No.2351 of 2013 26.11.2019
VB(16.12.2019) 2P 3C
2/2
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the Civil Revision Petition should be dismissed for default due to non-appearance of petitioners?
Whether the connected miscellaneous petition should be closed given the lack of appeal?
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
I.A.No.171 of 2013 in R.C.O.P.No.78 of 2013Referred¶10
2 provisions across 2 enactments
1.A.Tajeyusha
2.M.Abbas
S.R.Fathima Beevi
S.Vaidyanathan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
