Dismissed

M.Amanullakhan v. M.Jemila Beevi

Madras HC29 Nov 2021CMP(MD)/3405/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madras High Court dismissed a Civil Miscellaneous Petition seeking to restore a previously dismissed revision petition. The petitioner failed to appear, and no legal representatives were impleaded despite multiple adjournments. The Civil Miscellaneous Petition was dismissed for default.

What did the court decide?

Dismissal of the Civil Miscellaneous Petition for default due to non-appearance by the petitioner's representatives.

M.Amanullakhan Vs M.Jemila Beevi — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT Civil Appellate Jurisdiction Monday, the Twenty Ninth day of November Two Thousand and Twenty One

¶2

PRESENT The Hon`ble Ms.Justice P.T.ASHA

¶3

CMP(MD). No.3405 of 2021 in C.R.P(MD).No.2118 of 2019

¶4

M.Amanullakhan ... Petitioner/Petitioner/Defendant

¶5

¶6

1 M.Jemila Beevi

¶7

2 M.Fathrudeen

¶8

3 M.Abdul Hasan

¶9

4 M.Baragath Beevi

¶10

5 M.Insha Begam

¶11

6 Mugafath Beevi

¶12

7 N.Sajitha

¶13

8 S.Sameena

¶14

9 I.Safiq

¶15

10 C.Pandiammal

¶16

11 A.Rajendran

¶17

12 B.Gandhi

¶18

13 M.Balamurugan

¶19

14 M.Sathiyaraj

¶20

15 R.Revathy

¶21

16 Radha Krishnan

¶22

17 R.Panja

¶23

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

18 Murugesan

19 Muthulakshmi

20 Ponnusamy

21 Maragatham

22 Muniyasamy

23 Muthuraj

24 Vellaisamy 25 S.Murugesan

¶31

26 Kuppamuthu 27 Indira

¶32

28 Priya

¶33

29 Selvasundaram 30 Ravi 31 Thangavel 32 Puspam 33 Rani 34 Selvi

¶34

35 Pancharam ... Respondent/Respondent/Plaintiff

¶35

Prayer :-

¶36

This Petition filed Under Order IX rule 9 of Code of Civil Procedure to restore the revision petition in CRP(MD)No.2118 of 2019 which was dismissed for non-prosecution by the order of this Honourable Court dated 09.02.2021

¶37

Prayer in CRP(MD). 2118/ 2019 :

¶38

Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to set aside the fair and Decreetal order dated 17.9.2019 passed in I.A.No.214/2019 in O.S. No.2/2013 on the file of the Sub Judge, Ramanathapuram.

¶39

ORDER:- This Petition coming on for orders on this day and upon perusing the petition and the affidavit filed in support thereof and the petitioner not appear in person or by Advocate this Court made the following order:

¶40

This petition is filed to restore the revision petition in https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ C.R.P(MD) No.2118 of 2019 which was dismissed for non-prosecution by order of this Court dated 09.02.2021.

¶41

2.On 18.11.2021, when the matter was listed, it was brought to the notice of this Court that the sole petitioner was no more. However, steps had not been taken to implead his legal representatives and the matter stood adjourned to 22.11.2021. When the matter was called on the said date, there was no representation on the side of the petitioner and neither steps had been taken. Hence, the matter was directed to be listed on 24.11.2021. When the matter was listed on 24.11.2021, once again there was no representation on the side of the petitioner and neither steps had been taken. Therefore, the matter was directed to be listed today i.e., 29.11.2021 under the caption “for dismissal”. Once again there is no representation and steps have not been taken.

¶42

3.In view of the above, this Civil Miscellaneous Petition is dismissed for default.

¶43

Sd/Assistant Registrar (CS-I)

¶44

// True Copy //

¶45

/ /2021 Sub Assistant Registrar(CS)

¶46

¶47

The Subordinate Judge, Ramanathapuram.

¶48

ORDER DATED : 29/11/2021

¶49

========================== ORDER ==========================

¶50

CMP(MD). No.3405 of 2021 in C.R.P(MD).No.2118 of 2019

¶51

Giving direction and etc. as stated within. RD(14.12.2021) 3P 2C

¶52

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

M.Amanullakhan v. M.Jemila Beevi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.Amanullakhan v. M.Jemila Beevi

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

Anjugam Vs M.Kaliyan (died)

Shamini Vs Sujan Christo

N.Raja Vs L.N.T.Mahadevan

City Builder, Vs Paramanand Jindal

J.Augustine Soundaraj Vs v.Muthulakshmi Priya

Gunasekaran Ponmani Vs Senthil Raja