The High Court dismissed six Civil Revision Petitions filed under Article 226/227. The court observed a decade-long pendency and lack of prosecution by the petitioners, leading to the dismissal of the petitions for non-prosecution and closure of connected petitions.
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.
CRP (NPD).No.3362 to 3367 of 2011
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 22.09.2021
CORAM
The Hon'ble Mr.Justice Krishnan Ramasamy
C.R.P (NPD)Nos.3362 to 3367 of 2011 (six cases) and
M.P.Nos.1 of 2011 (six in nos.)
Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the common order and decreetal order, dated 31.03.2011, in Tel.O.P.No.7 of 2005, on the file of the Additional District Judge, FTC.No.2, Cuddalore.
1/5
CRP (NPD).No.3362 to 3367 of 2011
For Revision Petitioners } M/s.V.Viswanathan, in all C.R.Ps. no appearance
For Respondent in C.R.P.(NPD) Nos.3362 to 3366/2011 } Notice not ready
For Respondent-1 in C.R.P.(NPD)} Died No.3367/2011
For Respondents 2 to 4 in C.R.P.(NPD)} Notice not ready No.3367/2011
COMMON ORDER
When these matters are taken up for hearing today (i.e. 22.09.2021), none appeared on behalf of the revision petitioners.
through the overhead electricity line on the respondents' flat.
3. It appears that, originally, the order was passed by the District Magistrate/Collector, Cuddalore District, on 02.08.2004, vide REF.C3/61031/99. The same was challenged before the Court below in Tel.O.P.Nos.7 to 10, 12 and 13 of 2005 and the Court below vide
common order, dated 31.03.2011, modified the order and the same is
2/5
CRP (NPD).No.3362 to 3367 of 2011
under challenge before this Court.
4. The Civil Revision Petitions were filed in the year 2011 and the
same were admitted by the Court on 26.09.2011 and interim stay was granted. Thereafter, vide order, dated 14.08.2020, fresh notice was ordered both through Court as well as privately, returnable by 04.09.2020. Insofar as notices in respect of the respondents in C.R.P.(NPD)Nos.3362 to 3366/2011 are concerned, the same were returned with an endorsement 'No such person'. Therefore, it is for the revision petitioners to take steps to
find out the correct address of the respondent in order to serve notice.
So far as first respondent in C.R.P.(NPD) No.3367/2011 is concerned, he died and hence, the revision petitioner ought to have taken steps to implead
the legal representatives of the deceased first respondent. Though the notice in respect of respondents 2 to 4 in C.R.P.(NPD) No.3367/2011 were
refused, no affidavit of service has been filed.
5. Thus, it is seen that the cases are pending for a decade, and
3/5
CRP (NPD).No.3362 to 3367 of 2011
with the strength of the Interim Order of Stay, Electricity board has not
shown any interest to prosecute the same, and unnecessarily, the
respondents are suffering without getting any compensation.
Therefore, this Court is not inclined to keep these matters pending any
more.
6 . Accordingly, these Civil Revision Petitions are dismissed for
non-prosecution. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are
closed. No costs.
22.09.2021
Index: Yes/No
Speaking/Non-speaking Order
mka/sd
To
The Additional District Judge,
FTC.No.2, Cuddalore.
Krishnan Ramasamy, J.,
mka/sd
4/5
CRP (NPD).No.3362 to 3367 of 2011
C.R.P (NPD)Nos.3362 to 3367 of 2011
22.09.2021
5/5
Tamil Nadu Electricity Board
Pattupilla
Krishnan Ramasamy
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
