Dismissed

A.Mohamed Yusuff Siraj v. N.Perumal

Madras HC28 Jul 2021CRP/4329/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A three-year-old Civil Revision Petition filed under Section 115 CPC seeking to set aside an ex-parte decree was dismissed. The Court rejected the plea for further adjournment as counsel showed no interest in proceeding. Due to the prolonged inactivity, the Court declined to entertain the petition and dismissed it without costs.

What did the court decide?

The Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No costs awarded.

A.Mohamed Yusuff Siraj Vs N.Perumal — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

C.R.P.(N.P.D).No.4329 of 2018

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 28.07.2021

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN

¶6

C.R.P.(NPD) No. 4329 of 2018

¶7

A.Mohamed Yusuff Siraj,

¶8

A.Mohamed Meera Rabiq Ali

¶9

R.Pathamuthu Sulthana Nasrin

¶10

Aayeesha Sulthana Sheeba

¶11

R.Katheeja Sulthana Almash ... Petitioners
Vs
N.Perumal ... Respondent

¶12

Prayer :- Civil Revision Petition is filed under Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code, to set aside the fair and decreetal order dated 27.09.2018 made in I.A.No.377 of 2018 in O.S.No.101 of 2015 on the file of the learned Principal District Munsif, Erode.

¶13

For Petitioners : Mr.Gowri Shankar for Mr.G.Jeremiah

¶14

ORDER

¶15

This Civil Revision Petition has been filed against the fair and

¶16

decreetal order dated 27.09.2018 made in I.A.No.377 of 2018 in

¶17

O.S.No.101 of 2015 on the file of the learned Principal District Munsif,

¶18

Erode, thereby dismissing the petition to set aside the ex-parte decree.

¶19

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

¶20

1/2

¶21

C.R.P.(N.P.D).No.4329 of 2018

¶22

G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN.J,

¶23

Lpp 2. When the matter was posted for admission on 27.12.2018,

¶24

at the request of the learned counsel for the petitioners, it was adjourned to 03.01.2019. Today, when the matter is listed, the learned counsel for

¶25

the petitioners sought for adjournment.

¶26

In view of the above, it clearly shows that the learned counsel for the petitioners has no interest in proceeding with the case further. Further, the Civil Revision Petition is pending for the past three years, without even admitting the same or ordering notice. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to entertain this petition. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No costs. 28.07.2021 Lpp Index:Yes/No Internet:Yes/No Speaking Order: Yes/No To The Principal District Munsif, Erode.

¶27

C.R.P.(NPD) No.4329 of 2018

¶28

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

¶29

2/2

A.Mohamed Yusuff Siraj v. N.Perumal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

A.Mohamed Yusuff Siraj v. N.Perumal

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

Uma Kirubakaran Vs Sriramulu Pillai (Died)

J.Gunasekaran Vs Sarala

Kanagalakshmi Vs Kaliyamoorthi @ Kaliyapermual

Ponnusamy Vs Mohamani

Tamilnadu Industrial Vs M/S. Omega Cables Ltd.

A. Manoharan @ Doss (Deceased) Vs Aalan