Petitioner filed a civil revision petition. Counsel admitted lack of interest in prosecuting the matter. The court dismissed the petition for non-prosecution and closed the connected miscellaneous petition.
Civil revision petition dismissed for non-prosecution; connected miscellaneous petition closed.
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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 06.10.2020
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUBRAMANIAN
Julimetillda ...Petitioner Vs. Puthiyaraja ..Respondent Prayer: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, against the fair and decreetal order dated 29.04.2017 made in I.A.No. 47 of 2016 in I.D.O.P.No. 7 of 2015 on the file of the Principal District cum Sessions Judge, Ariyalur and consequently award the amount as prayed for in I.A.No.47 of 2016 in I.D.O.P.No. 7 of 2015.
For Petitioner : Mr.Arockiadass For Respondent : Mrs.Elizabeth Ravi
The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that they had given change of Vakalat even in the month of June 2019. No new counsel is appearing. It is therefore, clear that the petitioner is not interested in prosecuting this civil revision petition.
Sd/Assistant Registrar(CS III) //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar
kkn
To:
The Principal District cum Sessions Judge, Ariyalur.
Copy To
The Section Officer,
VR Section, High Court,
Madras-104.
C.R.P.No.1035 of 2018
and
C.M.P.No.5449 of 2018
PP(CO)
CS/10/11/2020
Julimetillda
Puthiyaraja
R. Subramanian
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
