Dismissed

C.B.Nanda Gopal (Decs) v. M.Mohammed Akbar

Madras HC7 Oct 2021CRP/3658/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court dismissed a revision petition filed for forensic verification of documents as withdrawn. It directed the lower court to expedite the underlying suit within one year to allow impleadment of the respondent's legal heirs, who had replaced the deceased sole party.

What did the court decide?

Civil revision petition dismissed as withdrawn. Petitioners allowed to withdraw former motion and implead respondent's heirs in the underlying suit. Lower court directed to dispose of suit within one

C.B.Nanda Gopal (Decs) Vs M.Mohammed Akbar — Property and Title | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

C.R.P.(NPD).No.3658 of 2017

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 07.10.2021

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE V.M.VELUMANI

¶6

C.R.P.(NPD)No.3658 of 2017
and C.M.P.No.17021 of 2017
C.B.Nanda Gopal (Deceased)
1.C.N.Poongodi
2.C.N.Yasodha
3.C.N.Krishnaveni
4.C.N.Prithvirajkumar .. Petitioners
Vs.
M.Mohammed Akbar .. Respondent
Prayer : Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India, against the judgment and decree dated 04.07.2016
made in M.P.No.696 of 2015 in M.P.No.560 of 2013 in R.C.O.P.No.750
of 2013 on the file of the XIII Small Causes Court, Chennai and
consequently, direct for forensic verification of Exhibits R1 and R2.

¶7

For Petitioners : Mr.P.C.Hari Kumar For Respondent : No appearance

¶8

1/6

¶9

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/

¶10

C.R.P.(NPD).No.3658 of 2017

¶11

O R D E R

¶12

(The matter is heard through 'video conferencing/hybrid mode') This Civil Revision Petition is filed against the judgment and

¶13

decree dated 04.07.2016 made in M.P.No.696 of 2015 in M.P.No.560 of

¶14

2013 in R.C.O.P.No.750 of 2013 on the file of the XIII Small Causes

¶15

Court, Chennai and consequently, direct for forensic verification of Exhibits R1 and R2.

¶16

2.The petitioners are legal heirs of one C.B.Nanda Gopal. The said C.B.Nanda Gopal filed R.C.O.P.No.750 of 2013 against the respondent,

¶17

for eviction on the ground of wilful default. The respondent filed counter statement on 03.10.2003. Pending R.C.O.P., said C.B.Nanda Gopal died. The present petitioners were brought on record as petitioners in R.C.O.P.

¶18

The petitioners filed M.P.No.696 of 2015 under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, to refer the Rental Receipts dated 01.08.2013 and

¶19

the No Objection letter dated 12.08.2013, which were marked as Exs.R1 and R2 for Expert Opinion, to compare the signatures in those documents

¶20

with the signature of the petitioner's father in R.C.O.P., on the ground

¶21

2/6

¶22

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/

¶23

C.R.P.(NPD).No.3658 of 2017

¶24

that their father filed application under Section 11(4) of the Act. During pendency of application under Section 11(4) of the Act, the respondent let in evidence as R.W.1 and filed proof affidavit along with certain documents and the matter was posted for cross-examination of R.W.1. At that time, their father died due to their old age, leaving the petitioners. The petitioners were impleaded as parties and they applied for certified copies of the documents filed in support of the proof affidavit filed by the respondent and found that those documents were manipulated and fabricated as if it was signed by their father. In view of the same, they filed the present Petition. The learned Rent Controller dismissed the M.P. Against the said order of dismissal 04.07.2016 made in M.P.No.696 of 2015 in M.P.No.560 of 2013 in R.C.O.P.No.750 of 2013, the present Civil Revision Petition has been filed.

¶25

3.When the Civil Revision Petition is taken up for hearing, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the sole respondent in R.C.O.P., as well as in the C.R.P. died and seeks permission of this Court to withdraw the Civil Revision Petition with

¶26

3/6

¶27

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/

¶28

C.R.P.(NPD).No.3658 of 2017

¶29

liberty to withdraw the petition filed by their father under Section 11(4) of the Act and proceed with the R.C.O.P., impleading the legal heirs of the respondent/tenant.

¶30

4.Recording the submission made by the learned counsel appearing

¶31

for the petitioners, this Civil Revision Petition is dismissed as withdrawn. The petitioners are at liberty to withdraw the petition in M.P.No.560 of 2013, filed under Section 11(4) of the Act and file petition to implead the legal heirs of the respondent in R.C.O.P. The R.C.O.P. is of the year 2013. The learned XIII Judge, Small Causes Court, Chennai, is directed to dispose of the same as expeditiously as possible, in any event, within a period of one year from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No

¶32

costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.

¶33

07.10.2021 Index :: Yes/No gsa

¶34

¶35

4/6

¶36

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/

¶37

C.R.P.(NPD).No.3658 of 2017

¶38

The XIII Judge, Small Causes Court, Chennai,

¶39

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/

¶40

5/6

¶41

C.R.P.(NPD).No.3658 of 2017

¶42

V.M.VELUMANI, J.

¶43

gsa

¶44

C.R.P.(NPD)No.3658 of 2017

¶45

07.10.2021

¶46

6/6

¶47

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/

C.B.Nanda Gopal (Decs) v. M.Mohammed Akbar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

C.B.Nanda Gopal (Decs) v. M.Mohammed Akbar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

K. Palani Vs Varalakshmi

M.Subramaniam Vs Chinnamani

Chinnathai@Kamalaveni Vs Kanniammal

M.Budhurnisa Vs Syed Ali Basha

Rasayal Vs Pandurangan

Rathinavel Vs Suseela