S.P. Raju, v. Madhayyan
Case brief
What is this about?
Civil Revision Petitions challenging dismissal of amendment petitions were closed as infructuous since the underlying appeals had already been taken up for hearing.
What did the court decide?
Closed as infructuous. No costs.
What the court decided
C.R.P.(NPD).Nos.2005 & 2006 of 2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 17.06.2021
CORAM
THE HON'BLE Ms. JUSTICE R.N.MANJULA
C.R.P.(NPD).Nos.2005 & 2006 of 2016
C.R.P.(NPD).No.2005/2016
S.P.Raju ... Petitioner /5 th defendant/petitioner
Vs.
1.Madhayyan ... 1 st respondent/plaintiff/respondent
2.A.J.Rayappan
3.Sundaram @ Sengodan
4.C.K.Selvaraj
5.K.P.Muthusamy ...Respondents 2-5/Defendants 1-4/
Respondents.
(Respondents 2 to 5 herein given up as unnecessary parties vide separate memo)
PRAYER : The Civil Revision Petition filed under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908,against the fair and final order dated 31.08.2015 made in I.A.NO.114 of 2015 in O.S.No.335 of 2010, on the file of the I Additional District Munsif Court, Bhavani.
C.R.P.(NPD).No.2006/2016
1/4
Parties & counsel
- petitioner
S.P. Raju
- respondent
Madhayyan
Coram
R.N. MANJULA
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court