A revision petition challenging an order dismissing an application to implead parties in a partition suit was dismissed as infructuous because the underlying suit had already been finally disposed of. The court held no need to examine the merits.
The Civil Revision Petition is dismissed as infructuous.
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.
C.R.P.(NPD)(MD) No.750 of 2010
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 03.01.2020
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUBRAMANIAN
C.R.P.(NPD)(MD) No.750 of 2010 and M.P(MD)No.1 of 2010
1.P.Ganapathi Subbu
2.P.Ganapathisamy
3.P.Ganapathi Ramasamy Alias Ponraj
... Revision Petitioners
-Vs-
1.Rengasamy
2.Marisamy
3.Senniraj(Died)
9.Krishnasamy (Died) 10.Gurusamy (Died)
11.Rukumani
12.Kanagalakshmi 13.Mariammal
14.Kanagalakshmi 15.Alamelu 16.Perumalsamy 17.Balakrishnan
18.Ramachandran
19.Panchalai
20.Seethalakshmi
21.Dhanushkodi 22.Rengasamy 23.Sankararaj 24.Naranammal 25.Maheshwari 26.Jothi 27.Maniraj 28.Renunithia 29.Murali 30.Kanagaraj 31.Rajalakshmi 32.Rajagopal 33.Chellathai
1/3
C.R.P.(NPD)(MD) No.750 of 2010
34.Selvaraj 35.Kanagalakshmi 36.Avudaithayammal 37. District Collector, Tuticorin District, Tuticorin. 38.Indira 39.Mano Vignesh 40.Minor Krishnakumar Rep. by his mother & natural guardian Indira. (Respondents 38 to 40 brought on record as the Lrs of deceased 3rd respondent vide order dated 14.12.2016) 41.Gomathi 42.Rajasundari 43.Senthilkumar (RR41 to 43 are brought on record as Lrs of died R9, vide Court Order Dated 19.06.2019) 44.Natchiarammal 45.Kamalaveni 46.Kalaivani 47.Venkateshkumar (RR44 to 47 are brought on record as Lrs of died R10, vide Court Order Dated 19.06.2019)
... Respondents
Prayer: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, against the petition and order dated 18.01.2010 made in I.A.No.230 of 2008 in O.S.No.49 of 2008 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Kovilpatti.
For Petitioners : Mr.Hema Karthikeyan For RR1,2,4 to 8, 11 to 27, 29 to 36, 38 to 40, 44 to 47 : No appearance For R41 to R43 : Mr.T.Lajapathi Roy For R37 : Mr.N.Shanmugaselvam Additional Government Pleader
O R D E R
This Civil Revision Petition has been filed challenging the order made in I.A.No.230 of 2008 in O.S.No.49 of 2008 on the file of https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/
2/3
C.R.P.(NPD)(MD) No.750 of 2010
the Sub-Court, Kovilpatti. The said application was filed by the petitioners seeking to implead themselves in the suit for partition relating to the estate of Late.Potti Naicker. The said application came to be dismissed on the ground that the petitioners have not established their relationship with Late.Potti Naicker.
Assistant Registrar
// True Copy //
/ /2020 Sub Assistant Registrar(CS )
Am
To
Copy to:
The Record Keeper, V.R.Section, (2 copies) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
+1 CC to SPL.GP ( SR-269[F] dated 06/01/2020 )
+1 CC to M/s.T.LAJAPATHIROY, Advocate ( SR-298[F] dated 06/01/2020 ) +1 CC to Mr.K.HEMAKARTHIKEYAN, Advocate (SR-194[F] dated 03/01/2020 )
C.R.P.(NPD)(MD) No.750 of 2010 03.01.2020
MK (21.01.2020) 3P 8C
3/3
1 issue framed by the court
Whether a civil revision petition challenging an incidental order is maintainable when the principal suit has been disposed of.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
P. Ganapathi Subbu
Rengasamy
Marisamy
Dhanalakshmi
R. Subramanian
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
