Dismissed

Mitnasala Ramesh Babu v. Mitnasala Manjula

Madras HC4 Aug 2020CMP/9342/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner filed a Civil Miscellaneous Petition to condone delay in filing an appeal against a Family Court order. During hearings, counsel appeared with a memo requesting permission to withdraw the petition. The Court dismissed the CMP as withdrawn, resulting in the rejection of the underlying Civil Miscellaneous Appeal.

What did the court decide?

Permission to withdraw the Civil Miscellaneous Petition granted; the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is rejected.

Mitnasala Ramesh Babu Vs Mitnasala Manjula — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Madras HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 04.08.2020

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUBBIAH AND

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.SARAVANAN

¶6

C.M.P.No.9342 of 2019
in
C.M.A.Sr.No.37279 of 2019
Mitnasala Ramesh Babu
S/o.Late Kondaiah ... Petitioner/ Appellant
vs
1.Mitnasala Manjula
W/o.Mitnasala Ramesh Babu
2.Mitnasala Lavanya
D/o.Mitnasala Ramesh Babu ... Respondents/ Respondents
Prayer:

¶7

Civil Miscellaneous Petition filed u/s.19(3) of the Family Court Act, praying to condone the delay of 479 days in filing the above appeal against the order dated 23.10.2017 passed in I.A.No.1857 of 2013 in O.P.No.45 of 2011 on the file of learned IV Additional Judge, Family Court, Chennai.

¶8

Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed u/s.19 of the Family Court Act against the fair and decretal order of learned IV Additional Judge, Family Court, Chennai, passed in I.A.No.1857 of 2013 in O.P.No.45 of 2011 dated 23.10.2018.

¶9

For Appellant : Mr.C.H.Vinobha Gandhi

¶10

For Respondents: Ms.P.Uma

¶11

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

¶12

ORDER

¶13

[Order of the Court was made by R.SUBBIAH, J]

¶14

[Heard through Video Conference]

¶15

Learned counsel for petitioner seeks permission of this Court to withdraw the present petition and has also submitted a memo dated 04.08.2020 to that effect.

¶16

The Memo dated 04.08.2020 submitted by petitioner reads as follows:

¶17

'It is respectfully submits as follows:

¶18

The petitioner submits that the above CMP filed

¶19

praying to condone the delay of 476 days arose in filing CMA against orders passed in I.A.No.1857 of 2013 that filed in HMOP. No: 45 of 2011 by the Hon'ble Family Judge, Chennai.

¶20

The petitioner submits that he is not intend to proceed with case and decided to withdraw and instructed his counsel to represent the same before this Hon'ble court.

¶21

Therefore the petitioner prays that this Hon'ble court may be pleased to permit the petitioner to withdraw this petition and thus render justice.

¶22

Dated at Chennai on this 04th day of August - 2020.'

¶23

Recording the memo dated 04.08.2020, the Civil Miscellaneous Petition is dismissed as withdrawn. Consequently, C.M.A.Sr.No.37279 of 2019 is rejected.

Sd/-

Assistant Registrar

//True Copy//

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶28

¶29

The IV Additional Judge, Family Court, Chennai.

¶30

C.M.P.No.9342 of 2019 in C.M.A.Sr.No.37279 of 2019

¶31

ap[co] srg 05/10/2020

¶32

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

Mitnasala Ramesh Babu v. Mitnasala Manjula

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mitnasala Ramesh Babu v. Mitnasala Manjula

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

P.Kalaivani Vs N.a.Deivasigamani

United India Insurance Co.Ltd. Vs Mrs. Suseela Jothi Mary

State of Tamil Nadu Vs S.Madhan Kumar

M/S.Wan Hai Lines (Singapore) P. Ltd. Ic, Hee Ching Road, 25-1, Teepal Towers, Vs Tionale Pte Ltd., 77, High St, 11-01/05 High Street Plaza

Mamta Lodha Vs Narpat Chand Lodha

Indhumathi Vs Prabhu