Dismissed

Rathinapandi v. Highcourt Durai

Madras HC18 Mar 2020CRP(MD)/1160/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a civil revision petition to set aside the dismissal of an application for an additional written statement, the Madras High Court held the petition infructuous because the parties settled their dispute before a Lok Adalat. The petition was dismissed as infructuous.

What did the court decide?

Civil Revision Petition dismissed as infructuous. Order passed with liberty to seek restoration.

Rathinapandi Vs Highcourt Durai — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Madras HC (2020)

¶1

C.R.P(MD)No.1160 of 2012 (NPD)

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 18.03.2020 CORAM:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.S.SUNDAR C.R.P(MD)No.1160 of 2012 (NPD) and M.P(MD)No. 1 of 2012

¶4

Rathinapandi

¶5

..Petitioner/Petitioner/1^st Defendant

¶6

-vs-

¶7

High Court Durai,

¶8

.. Respondent/Respondent/Plaintiff

¶9

PRAYER: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to set aside the order dated 13.03.2012 passed in I.A.No.39 of 2012 in O.S.No.200 of 2008 on the file of the Trainee District Judge cum Additional Subordinate Judge, Tuticorin.

¶10

For Petitioner : No appearance For Respondent : Mr.R.Manimaran

¶11

ORDER

¶12

The first defendant in O.S.No.200 of 2008 on the file of the Trainee District Judge cum Additional Subordinate Judge, Tuticorin is the revision petitioner. During the pendency of the suit, the revision petitioner filed an application under Order 8 Rule 9 of C.P.C, to receive the additional written statement. Such application was dismissed and the present revision petition is filed as against the order dismissing the petition filed by the revision petitioner for reception of additional written statement.

¶13

2.The learned counsel for the respondent states that the parties have settled their dispute before the Lok Adalat and that therefore, the prayer in the Civil Revision Petition has become infructuous.

¶14

3.Though the learned counsel for the respondent did not produce the copy of the award of Lok Adalat, this Court based on the representation of the counsel for the respondent, pass the following order:-

¶15

“This Civil Revision Petition is dismissed as infructuous. If the petitioner proves otherwise and the dismissal of revision petition as infructuous is not warranted, it is open to the revision petitioner to seek restoration by recalling the order of this Court. With

¶16

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

¶17

1/2

¶18

C.R.P(MD)No.1160 of 2012 (NPD)

¶19

such liberty, this Civil Revision Petition is dismissed as infructuous. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.”

¶20

Sd/-

¶21

Assistant Registrar (AS)

¶22

// True Copy //

¶23

/ /2020 Sub Assistant Registrar(CS )

¶24

skn

¶25

¶26

The District Judge-cum - Additional Subordinate Judge, Tuticorin.

¶27

C.R.P(MD)No.1160 of 2012 (NPD) and M.P(MD)No. 1 of 2012 18.03.2020

¶28

TP (08.05.2020) 3P-2C

¶29

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

¶30

2/2

Rathinapandi v. Highcourt Durai

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rathinapandi v. Highcourt Durai

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rengaraj Vs Veeran

M.Santhiagu Joseph Vs the Deputy Registrar

Balasubramanian Vs Sundararajan

Rajendra Nadar Vs Mohamed Mohideen

N.Latha, W/O.Nanda Gopal Vs Muthu Vijayan

Mathiah Mudaliar (Died) Vs Arunachalam