Vinoth v. Minor Kiruthika
Case brief
What is this about?
High Court dismissed a Civil Revision Petition under Article 226, holding it infructuous as the underlying claim petition by the third party had already been allowed.
What did the court decide?
Civil Revision Petition dismissed as infructuous. No costs.
What the court decided
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 10.12.2020
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUBRAMANIAN
C.R.P.No.2367 of 2018
1.Vinoth
2.Vinodhini
3.Vignesh
4.Vivek
5.Vinitha ..Petitioners/Petitioners/
Plaintiffs
Vs.
1.Minor Kiruthika 2.Minor Pavithra [Minor respondents 1 and 2 represented by Mother and next friend Meenakshi] 3.Meenakshi 4.Baskaran 5.Batcha @ Murugan ..Respondents/Respondents/ Defendants
PRAYER: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, praying to direct the disposal of E.P.No.137 of 2014 in O.S.No.69 of 2006 on the file of the Principal Sub Court, Mayiladuthurai.
For Petitioners : Mr.S.Sounthar For Respondents : Mr.K.Thilageswaran for R3 O R D E R
This matter is taken up for hearing through VideoConferencing.
2. Mr.S.Sounthar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that the Revision itself has become infructuous since the claim petition filed by the third party has been allowed.
Issues for consideration
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the Civil Revision Petition has become infructuous due to the allowance of the third party's claim petition.
Parties & counsel
- petitioner
Vinoth
- petitioner
Vinodhini
- petitioner
Vignesh
- petitioner
Vivek
- petitioner
Vinitha
- respondent
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court