Venkatachalam v. R.Venkataraman
Case brief
What is this about?
The High Court dismissed the civil revision petition under Section 115 of CrPC because the petitioner's counsel reported no instructions despite notices issued.
What did the court decide?
Civil Revision Petition dismissed; no costs; connected Miscellaneous Petition closed.
What the court decided
C.R.P.(NPD).No.3740 of 2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 27.10.2021
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE V.M.VELUMANI
C.R.P.(NPD).No.3740 of 2017
and C.M.P.No.17386 of 2017
1.Venkatachalam
2.P.Nagarajan .. Petitioners
Vs.
1.R.Venkataraman
2.Ramasamy
3.Narayanan
4.Govindan
5.Nagaraj
6.Arumugam
7.Chandran
8.Rajamani
9.Ranganayagi
10.A.Rajendran
11.Brinda
12.Suriya
13.Sindhu .. Respondents
(Cause title accepted vide order of this Court dated 21.09.2017 made in
C.M.P.No.15747of 2017 in C.R.P.SR.59334 of 2017)
Prayer : Civil Revision Petition filed under Section 115 of C.P.C., against
the fair and decreetal order dated 20.10.2016 made in I.A.No.508 of 2014
in O.S.No.89 of 2004 on the file of the III Additional District Court,
Salem.
1/4
C.R.P.(NPD).No.3740 of 2017
For Petitioners : Ms.Nirmala for M/s.D.Shivakumaran
Issues for consideration
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a civil revision petition should be disposed of when the petitioner fails to appear due to lack of instructions.
What the consequence is when counsel reports no instructions from the petitioner despite noticing.
Parties & counsel
- petitioner
Venkatachalam
- petitioner
P.Nagarajan
- respondent
R.Venkataraman
Coram
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court