Allowed

R. Gopal Shankar v. Tmt. Usha

Madras HC15 Nov 2019WP(MD)/5637/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court disposed of two writ petitions seeking quashing of notices. The Court set aside the impugned orders without expressing an opinion on merits and directed the District Munsif Court to expedite the trial of a decade-old suit within four months.

What did the court decide?

Impugned notices are set aside; the District Munsif Court is directed to dispose of O.S.No.54 of 2009 within four months.

R. Gopal Shankar Vs Tmt. Usha — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Madras HC (2019)

¶1

W.P.(MD)No.5637 of 2010

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 15.11.2019 CORAM:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.SUNDAR W.P(MD)Nos.5637 of 2010 and 19803 of 2019 and W.M.P.(MD)Nos.16284, 16285 and 16286 of 2019

¶4

W.P.(MD)No.5637 of 2010

¶5

1.R.Gopal Shankar(died) 2.G.Johndevi 3.Minor G.Nivetha 4.Minor G.Harini ... Petitioners (P.2 to P.4 are substituted as LRs of the deceased P.1 vide order dated 26.09.2019 made in WMP(MD)No.6130 of 2019) (Minor Petitioners are represented by their mother)

¶6

Vs.

¶7

1.Usha

¶8

2.The District Registrar, Office of Registrar, Pattukkottai.

¶9

... Respondents

¶10

PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Certiorari calling for the records relating to the notice in ref.Na.Ka.No.3394/2009/Aa1 dated 10.03.2010 and quash the notice issued by the second respondent as illegal without jurisdiction and arbitrary.

¶11

For Petitioner : Mr.M.R.S.Prabhu for Mr.V.K.Vijayaragavan

¶12

For Respondents : Mr.B.Prasanna Vinoth for Mr.Kumaresan for R.1

¶13

: Mr.V.Anand Government Advocate for R.2

¶14

W.P.(MD)No.19803 of 2019

¶15

John Devi ... Petitioner

¶16

Vs.

¶17

1.The District Registrar (Administration), Office of District Registrar, Pattukkottai, Thanjavur District.

¶18

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶19

1/4

¶20

W.P.(MD)No.5637 of 2010

¶21

2.S.Usha

¶22

3.S.Sivananthan ... Respondents

¶23

PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Certiorari calling for the records relating to the notice issued by the first respondent in Ref Na.Ka.No.838/Aa1/2018 dated 10.07.2019 fixing enquiry on 22.07.2019 and on the subsequent dates and quash the same as illegal, arbitrary and without jurisdiction.

¶24

For Petitioner : Mr.M.R.S.Prabhu

¶25

For Respondents : Mr.V.Anand Government Advocate for R.1 :Mr.B.Prasanna Vinoth for R.2 and R.3

¶26

COMMON ORDER

¶27

This common consent order will dispose of both these writ petitions. 'W.P.(MD)No.5637 of 2010' will be referred to as 'I Writ Petition' and 'W.P.(MD)No.19803 of 2019' will be referred to as 'II Writ Petition' for the sake of convenience and clarity.

¶28

The factual matrix in these writ petitions and central theme or in other words, controversy in these two writ petitions have been captured and encapsulated in the impugned proceedings bearing ref.Na.Ka.No.3394/2009/Aa1 dated 10.03.2010 and Ref Na.Ka.No.838/Aa1/2018 dated 10.07.2019, issued by the second respondent and first respondent respectively.

¶29

One other fact which was brought to the notice of this Court is that after proceedings dated 10.03.2010, one of the parties had moved a Civil Revision Petition in this Court being C.R.P.No.2332 of 2018 against an order made in an interlocutory application for impleading in O.S.No.54 of 2009, on the file of the District Munsif Court, Pattukkottai. Be that as it may, it is submitted today by all the learned Counsel before this Court without any contestation or disputation that this Civil Revision Petition has since been withdrawn today (15.11.2019). To be noted, an interim order was operating in this Civil Revision Petition, which has now come to an end owing to withdrawal of main Civil Revision Petition. In other https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶30

2/4

¶31

W.P.(MD)No.5637 of 2010

¶32

words, it is submitted that there is no legal impediment for the trial Court to proceed with the suit.

¶33

Therefore, the following consent order is passed:

¶34

(a) Impugned orders in both these writ petitions being ref.Na.Ka.No.3394/2009/Aa1 dated 10.03.2010 and Ref. Na.Ka.No.838/Aa1/2018 dated 10.07.2019 are set aside. To be noted, impugned orders are set aside without expressing any opinion on merits of the matter and impugned orders are being set aside for the purpose of enabling the parties to proceed with the civil suit so that they stand governed by the civil Court decree which shall be passed by expedited disposal;

¶35

(b) O.S.No.54 of 2009, on the file of District Munsif Court, Pattukkottai in which the contentious sale deeds have been put in issue will stand expedited, since pleadings are completed. It is a decade old suit. Therefore, the Presiding Officer of District Munsif Court, Pattukkottai is directed to proceed with the trial expeditiously and dispose of the suit on its own merits, in accordance with law within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order; and

¶36

(c) All parties to these writ petitions will now stand governed by the decree that is ultimately passed in the aforesaid civil suit, though obvious, subject to finality of the decree or in other words, subject to the decree attaining finality / legal quietus.'

¶37

Both these Writ Petitions are disposed of in the above terms. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.

¶38

Sd/-

¶39

Assistant Registrar (AD II)

¶40

// True Copy //

¶41

Sub Assistant Registrar(CS)

¶42

SSL .

¶43

¶44

1.The District Registrar (Administration), Office of District Registrar, Pattukkottai,

¶45

Thanjavur District.

¶46

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶47

3/4

¶48

W.P.(MD)No.5637 of 2010

¶49

The Court of Principal District Munsif, Pattukkottai.

¶50

+1 CC to M/s.V.K.VIJAYA RAGAVAN, Advocate ( SR-99154[F] dated 18/11/2019 )

¶51

+1cc to M/s.Special Government Pleader,SR.No. 99035

¶52

+1 cc Mr.B.PRASANNA VINOTH ,Advocate, SR.No. 99134

¶53

W.P(MD)Nos.5637 of 2010 and 19803 of 2019 15.11.2019

¶54

KK/SAR/03.12.2019/4P-6C/

¶55

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶56

4/4

R. Gopal Shankar v. Tmt. Usha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

R. Gopal Shankar v. Tmt. Usha

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

E. Lakshmi Narayanan, Vs Theh Chairman of

Bharat Petroleum Corporation Vs State of Tamilnadu

M. Lingammal Vs the District Collector

A. Mathimalar Jenmarackini Vs the Assistant Rural

R.Fidelis Villavarayar @ Vs State Bank of India

R.Ravikumar Vs the Govt. of India