Civil Revision Petition under Section 115 of CPC filed against an order dismissing a condonation delay application. Petitioner absent; suit disposed of with compromise. Petition closed for non-prosecution.
Petition closed for non-prosecution. Connected C.M.P. No. 676 of 2016 also 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).No.120 of 2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 29.06.2021
CORAM
THE HON'BLE Ms. JUSTICE R.N.MANJULA
C.R.P.(NPD).No.120 of 2016
and
C.M.P.No.676 of 2016
st
R.Thirugnanam ... Petitioner/1 defendant
Vs.
1.R.Thilagam ... Respondent/plaintiff
2.J.Uma Devi
3.R.Anbukarasi
4.S.Gnanakalai ... Respondents/defendants
PRAYER : The Civil Revision Petition filed under Section 115 of Civil Procedure Code, against the fair order and decreetal order dated 22.07.2015 made in I.A.No.7944/2015 in O.S.No.1842/2002, dismissing the application to condone the delay by the II Addl.Judge City Civil Court, Madras.
For Petitioner : No appearance
For Respondents : Mr. Poovendhan
M/S.R.Manickavel for RR1 to 3
ORDER
(Heard through video conferencing) This Civil Revision Petition has been arisen out an order dated 22.07.2015
made in I.A.No.7944/2015 in O.S.No.1842/2002, wherein an application to
condone the delay was dismissed by the II Addl.Judge City Civil Court, Madras.
1/4
C.R.P.(NPD).No.120 of 2016
29.06.2021
Speaking/Non-speaking Index : Yes/No Internet : Yes/No jrs
To
1.The II Addl.Judge City Civil Court, Madras.
2.The Section Officer, V.R.Section, 2/4
C.R.P.(NPD).No.120 of 2016
High Court, Madras.
3/4
C.R.P.(NPD).No.120 of 2016 R.N.MANJULA,J.
Jrs
C.R.P.(NPD).No.120 of 2016
and
C.M.P.No.676 of 2016
29.06.2021
4/4
R. Thirugnanam
R. Thilagam
J. Uma Devi
R. Anbukarasi
S. Gnanakalai
R.N. Manjula
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
