A civil revision petition seeking review of dismissal of a specific performance suit was dismissed for non-prosecution after the petitioner failed to appear for hearing after a prolonged delay of eight years.
Civil revision petition dismissed for non-prosecution; connected miscellaneous petition closed; no costs awarded.
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.3514 of 2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 22.09.2021
CORAM
The Hon'ble Mr.Justice Krishnan Ramasamy
C.R.P (NPD)No.3514 of 2013
and
M.P.No.1 of 2013
Mrs.Samsath Begam,
..Revision Petitioner
vs.
P.Arjunan,
S/o. M.Polia Gounder. ..Respondent
PRAYER:
Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order dated 31.10.2012 passed in I.A.No.104 of 2012 in O.S.No.725 of 2007 on the file of the 5th Additional District and Sessions Judge, and allow this Civil Revision Petition.
For Revision Petitioner : M/s.KannaAssociates, No appearance For Respondent : Notice not ready
1/4
CRP (NPD).No.3514 of 2013
O R D E R
The revision petitioner has filed the suit for specific
performance of an agreement of sale, dated 30.05.2007. The said suit
was dismissed for default, by judgement dated 02.12.2008. Thereafter, the revision petitioner filed an application to restore the suit along with
a Condone Delay Application. However, the Court below dismissed the
Condone Delay Application, vide order, dated 31.10.2012.
Challenging the same, the present Civil Revision Petition is filed in the year 2013.
that the matter has been adjourned from time to time pursuant to the
request made by the learned counsel appearing for the revision
petitioner. Lastly, the matter came up for hearing on 03.09.2020, on which date, none appeared on behalf of the revision petitioner.
Therefore, the matter was directed to be listed under the caption 'for
2/4
CRP (NPD).No.3514 of 2013
dismissal' on 17.09.2020. Thereafter, the matter is listed today and when the same is called, none appeared for the revision petitioner. This matter has been pending for the past eight years on the file of this Court, without any progress. Thus, it shows that the revision petitioner is not interested in prosecuting the case.
3/4
CRP (NPD).No.3514 of 2013
Krishnan Ramasamy, J., mka/sd
C.R.P (NPD)No.3514 of 2013
and
M.P.No.1 of 2013
22.09.2021
4/4
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the civil revision petition should be dismissed for non-prosecution due to the petitioner's failure to appear after an eight-year delay?
Samsath Begam
P.Arjunan
Krishnan Ramasamy
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
