Disposed

Chinnasamy v. Kanagaraj

Madras HC24 Jan 2020CRP/4895/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of the civil revision petition against an order dismissing an application to condone delay in an appeal. The Court held that the underlying dispute regarding title and possession was already decided in a preceding Supreme Court appeal, rendering no adjudication necessary in the revision petition.

What did the court decide?

Civil Revision Petition dismissed as nothing survives for further adjudication; connected Miscellaneous Petition closed.

Chinnasamy Vs Kanagaraj — Property and Title | Madras HC (2020)

¶1

C.R.P.(NPD) No.4895 of 2014

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

Reserved On : 20.11.2019 Pronounced On : 24.01.2020

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE R.PONGIAPPAN

¶6

Civil R evision Petition (NPD) No.4895 of 2014
and
M.P.No.1 of 2014
Chinnasamy .. Petitioner
Vs
1. K.Kanagaraj
2. Revathi
3. K.Narayanan
4. Iyammal
5. Munusamy .. Respondents

¶7

[R2 to R5 were set exparte before the lower Court. Hence, notice to R2 to R5, is dispensed with as per memo dated 17.09.2019 (presented in Court) and vide order of the Court dated 17.09.2019 made in CRP (NPD) No.4895 of 2014 [RPAJ]]

¶8

PRAYER: Civil Revision Petition filed under Section 115 of Code of Civil Procedure, to set aside the Fair and Decreetal order dated 22.08.2014 made in I.A.No.11 of 2010 in unnumbered C.M.A. of 2010 on the file of the Subordinate Court, Sankari.

¶9

For Petitioner : Mr.R.Subramanian For Respondents : No appearance (for R1)

¶10

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶11

1/4

¶12

C.R.P.(NPD) No.4895 of 2014

¶13

O R D E R

¶14

The petitioner is the plaintiff in OS No.179 of 2005, on the file of the District Munsif Court, Sankari. The Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order dated 22.08.2014 passed in I.A No.11 of 2010 in unnumbered CMA

¶15

of 2010 on the file of the Subordinate Court, Sankari.

¶16

Before filing the appeal in AS No.8 of 2010 on the file of learned Subordinate Judge, Sankari, the petitioner herein as a plaintiff filed the suit as against the respondents for the relief of declaration and permanent injunction. The trial Court has granted the relief of declaration, declaring that the petitioner/plaintiff is the absolute owner of the suit property. However, the relief of mandatory injunction and the perpetual injunction sought for by the plaintiff was negatived by the trial Court. As regards the said finding he filed the above referred appeal.

¶17

During the pendency of the suit, before the trial Court, the plaintiff filed IA No.690 of 2005 in which an order of ad interim injunction was granted in favour of the petitioner/plaintiff. When the said order was in force, it is alleged on the side of the petitioner/plaintiff, that the defendants wrongfully entered into the possession of the plaintiff's suit scheduled property. On that aspect the petitioner/plaintiff filed an

¶18

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶19

2/4

¶20

C.R.P.(NPD) No.4895 of 2014

¶21

interlocutory application under Order XXXIX Rule 2(A)(1) CPC in IA No.452 of 2008 and that the same was dismissed by order dated 19.11.2009, against which the petitioner/plaintiff preferred a Civil Miscellaneous Appeal before the Subordinate Court, Sankari, with a delay of 109 days. After elaborate enquiry, by order dated 22.08.2014 the condone delay application in I.A.No.11 of 2010 in unnumbered CMA of 2010, was dismissed and the learned Subordinate Judge, Sankari, refused to condone the delay, against which the petitioner has preferred the present Civil Revision Petition.

¶22

As of now, the dispute between the petitioner/plaintiff and the respondents/defendants in respect to the title and possession, came up before this Court in SA No.1112 of 2013 and the same was disposed of by this Court, holding that the petitioner/plaintiff is entitled to the relief of declaration and injunction. Therefore, nothing survives in this Civil Revision Petition, for further adjudication. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is disposed of. No Costs. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.

¶23

24.01.2020

¶24

Speaking/Non-speaking order Index: Yes/No Internet: Yes

¶25

ars

¶26

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶27

3/4

¶28

C.R.P.(NPD) No.4895 of 2014

¶29

R.PONGIAPPAN, J., ars

¶30

¶31

The Subordinate Judge, Sankari.

¶32

Pre-delivery order in
CRP (NPD) No.4895 of 2014
and M.P.No.1 of 2014
(2/2)
24.01.2020

¶33

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶34

4/4

Chinnasamy v. Kanagaraj

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chinnasamy v. Kanagaraj

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

Dhanasekar Vs the Deputy Superintendent

R.Karthikeyan Vs The Commissioner of Police

P. Jeyachandran Vs The Commissioner of Police

K.Kanangaraj Vs Chinnasamy

M.L.Altafar Rahman Vs K.H.Ameenur Rahman

Tmt Revathy Vs N.Adhimoolam