High Court dismissed three Civil Revision Petitions filed under Section 115 CPC against ejectment suit decrees for non-prosecution, noting petitioners' absence and lack of representation during consecutive hearings.
Civil Revision Petitions dismissed for non-prosecution; no costs awarded. Connected civil miscellaneous petitions closed.
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).Nos.1129 to 1131 of 2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 30.04.2021
CORAM
THE HON'BLE Ms. JUSTICE R.N.MANJULA
C.R.P.(NPD).Nos.1129 to 1131 of 2016
and C.M.P.Nos.6174 to 6176 of 2016
Amirthmmal ... Petitioner/Defendant in CRP.No.1129/2016
1.Chinnammal
2.Arumugham ... Petitioners/Defendants in CRP.No.1130/2016
Arumugham ... Petitioner/Defendant in CRP.No.1131/2016
Vs.
1.R.Kannan
Rep. By his duly constituted,
General Power of Attorney Agent,
Mr.R.Lakshmanan @ Sudhakar
2.R.Lakshmanan @ Sudhakar ... Respondents/Plaintiffs in all petitions
COMMON PRAYER: These Civil Revision Petitions filed under Section 115 of Civil Procedure Code, 1908 against the Judgements and Decrees dated 30.04.2015 passed in Ejectment Suit No.4 of 2008, Ejectment Suit No.3 of 2008 and Ejectment Suit No.5 of 2008 on the file of the III Court of Small Causes, Chennai.
For Petitioners : Mr.Ma.P.Thangavel (in all petitions) (No Appearance) For Respondents : M/s.G.Saravanan
1/4
C.R.P.(NPD).Nos.1129 to 1131 of 2016
(in all petitions) Sujatha Saravanan
COMMON ORDER
(Heard through video conferencing) These Civil Revision Petitions have been filed praying to set aside the
Judgements and Decrees dated 30.04.2015 passed in Ejectment Suit No.4 of 2008, Ejectment Suit No.3 of 2008 and Ejectment Suit No.5 of 2008 by the III
Court of Small Causes, Chennai.
2. There is no representation for the petitioners for the consecutive two hearings. The learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the delivery of the property has already been taken and the matter has become infructuous.
3. Considering the submission made by the learned counsel for the respondents and also the absence of the learned counsel for the petitioners, these Civil Revision Petitions are dismissed for non-prosecution. No costs.
Connected civil miscellaneous petitions in C.M.P.Nos.6174, 6175 & 6176 of 2016 are closed.
30.04.2021
Speaking/Non-speaking Index : Yes/No Internet : Yes/No
Sni
2/4
C.R.P.(NPD).Nos.1129 to 1131 of 2016
To
R.N.MANJULA,J.
3/4
C.R.P.(NPD).Nos.1129 to 1131 of 2016
Sni
C.R.P.(NPD).Nos.1129 to 1131 of 2016
30.04.2021
4/4
1 issue framed by the court
Whether to set aside the judgements and decrees dated 30.04.2015 passed in Ejectment Suit No.4 of 2008, Ejectment Suit No.3 of 2008 and Ejectment Suit No.5 of 2008.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Amirthamal
Chinnammal
Arumugham
R. Kannan And Ors.
R.N. Manjula
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
