M.P.N.Pardipan v. N.Mangalswari
Case brief
What is this about?
Petition for ad interim injunction sought in 2016 dismissed as closed due to prolonged pendency without useful purpose being served, ordered closed on 27/07/2020.
What the court decided
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
( Civil Appellate Jurisdiction )
Monday, the Twenty Seventh day of July Two Thousand Twenty PRESENT
THE HON`BLE MR JUSTICE R. MAHADEVAN CMP No.17797 of 2016 in AS NO.627/2016 M.P.N.PARDIPAN [ PETITIONER ] Vs 1 N.MANGALSWARI [ RESPONDENTS ] 2 M.P.N.EZHIL ARASU 3 UDAYA BANU 4 S.CHITRA
Petition praying that in the circumstances stated therein and in the affidavit filed therewith the High Court will be pleased to grant ad interim injunction restraining the 2nd respondent the 2nd respondent herein, his men, agent or anyone claiming through him from any manner alienating, mortgaging or any manner disturbing my peaceful possession of C Schedule property subject matter of O.SNo.5463/2013 on the file of VI Additional City Civil Court, Chennai.(CMP.17797/2016) in AS.627/2016
Order : This petition coming on this day for hearing upon perusing the petition and the affidavit filed in support thereof and upon hearing the arguments of MR.R.KRISHNA PRASAD FOR M/S.SARVABHAUMAN ASSOCIATES, Advocate for the petitioner and of MR.P.B.RAMANUJAM FOR RESPONDENTS 1 AND 2 the court made the following order:-
This petition has been filed in the year 2016. Notice to the respondents has been ordered on 11.11.2016. Thereafter, for paying Batta, notice was ordered to the fourth respondent on 24.01.2017. Further, fresh notice has been ordered to the fourth respondent, returnable by 12.11.2018, by order dated 26.10.2018. But, till now, https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ no interim order has been passed. No useful purpose would be served
Parties & counsel
- petitioner
M.P.N.PARDIPAN
- respondent
N.MANGALSWARI
- respondent
M.P.N.EZHIL ARASU
- respondent
UDAYA BANU
- respondent
S.CHITRA
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court