The High Court dismissed a Civil Revision Petition filed under Section 115 of CPC as per incuriam due to the petitioner's non-appearance on the day of hearing and excessive adjournments granted based on their requests over multiple years.
Civil Revision Petition dismissed for non-prosecution. No costs.
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.3476 of 2015
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 07.09.2021
CORAM
The Hon'ble Mr.Justice Krishnan Ramasamy
C.R.P (NPD)No.3476 of 2015
South East Benefit Fund Ltd.
Rep. by its Vice President cum Chief Executive
Old No.6, New No.13, Karthik Apartments
Chennai 600 028. ..Revision Petitioner
vs.
1.K.V.Ramanan
2.P.Nirmala
3.K.V.Jayakumar
4.K.V.Jayarani
5.Vamana Auctioneers
O.S.Buildings,
Room No.137, Old No.17,
New No.1, Ekambara Kumaraguru Street,
Chennai 600 003.
6.Sub Registrar,
Sub Registrar's Office,
Puraswakkam, Chennai.
..Respondents
1/4
CRP (NPD)No.3476 of 2015
PRAYER:
Civil Revision Petition filed under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure to call for the records pertaining to the Fair and Decreetal Order dated 23rd July 2012 passed in I.A.No.21959 of 2010 in O.S.No.8079 of 2008 on the file of the VII Asst City Civil Court, Chennai.
For Revision Petitioner - No appearance For Respondents - Mr.J.Kannan for R1, R2 & R4 R3 died (Steps due) R5 & R6 are given up [vide Bsr.71374 dated 13.08.13] O R D E R This Revision Petition is filed in the year 2015, and it is manifest from the endorsements made in the Order Sheet that the matter has been taken up for admission on 24 occasions. Even today, when the matter is called, none appeared on behalf of the revision petitioner, whereas, the learned counsel for the respondents 1, 2 and 4 is present. This Court is "Sick and Tired" of granting adjournments to the revision petitioner on several occasions as only at their request, this matter has been adjourned from time to time. Further, the way, in which, the matter was adjourned
owing to the revision petitioner's non appearance before this Court would
2/4
CRP (NPD)No.3476 of 2015
per se show that the revision petitioner is not interested in prosecuting the case but only to drag on the matter. Under these circumstances, this Court is not inclined to grant any more indulgence.
prosecution. No Costs.
07.09.2021
Index: Yes/No
Speaking/Non-speaking Order
jd/sd
To
1. The VII Asst. Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai.
2. The Sub Registrar,
Sub Registrar's Office,
Puraswakkam, Chennai.
Krishnan Ramasamy, J., jd/sd
3/4
CRP (NPD)No.3476 of 2015
C.R.P (NPD)No.3476 of 2015
07.09.2021
4/4
1 issue framed by the court
Whether a Civil Revision Petition should be dismissed due to the petitioner's persistent non-appearance and delay in prosecuting the matter.
South East Benefit Fund Ltd.
K.V.Ramanan
P.Nirmala
K.V.Jayakumar
K.V.Jayarani
Vamana Auctioneers
Krishnan Ramasamy
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
