R. Mathaiyan v. Ramu
Case brief
What is this about?
The Madras High Court dismissed a civil revision petition against the appointment of an Advocate Commissioner, declaring it infructuous as the underlying suit was already dismissed on merits.
What did the court decide?
Civil Revision Petition dismissed as infructuous; connected miscellaneous petition closed.
What the court decided
C.R.P(NPD)(MD)No.1027 of 2012
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 10.03.2020 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.S.SUNDAR C.R.P(NPD)(MD)No.1027 of 2012 and M.P.(MD)No.1 of 2012
R.Mathaiyan : Petitioner/Respondent/Respondent/Defendant
.. Vs ..
Ramu : Respondent/Petitioner/Petitioner/Plaintiff
PRAYER: Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, praying to allow the revision and set aside the fair and decretal order dated 24.01.2012 made in I.A.No.659 of 2010 in I.A.No.35 of 2009 in O.S.No.151 of 2008 on the file of District Munsif Court, Madurai Taluk, Madurai.
For Petitioner : Mr.PT.S.Narendravasan For Respondent : Mr.M.Saravanan - - - - -
ORDER
This Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order of appointment of Advocate Commissioner in a suit for bare injunction.
2.The leaned Counsel appearing for the revision petitioner fairly conceded that the suit itself was dismissed on merits. It is, therefore, submitted that the Civil Revision Petition may be dismissed as infructuous. Recording the submission of the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, this Civil Revision Petition is dismissed as infructuous. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
Parties & counsel
- petitioner
R.Mathaiyan
- respondent
Ramu
Coram
S.S.Sundar
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court