K.Muthusamy v. Govindammal
Case brief
What is this about?
In this civil revision petition, the Supreme Court held that a memo opposing a name description in the cause title is insufficient for a judicial order. The petitioner was directed to amend the title under Order VI Rule 17 CPC.
What did the court decide?
The Civil Revision Petition was disposed of. The petitioner was directed to follow the procedure under Order VI Rule 17 CPC.
What the court decided
A compact analysis
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.
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 22.04.2021
Coram
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice C.V.KARTHIKEYAN
C.R.P. (PD) No.924 of 2021
Mr.K.Muthusamy .. Petitioner/1 st Defendant
Vs
Govindammal .. Respondent/Plaintiff
Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution
of India to Direct the Sub Court, Kangeyam to consider the memo dated 28.11.2019 filed in I.A.No.859 of 2019 in O.S.No.302 of 2019
For Petitioner .. Mr.P.Sesubalan Raja For Respondent .. No appearance
2
ORDER
Issues for consideration
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a judicial order can be passed based on a mere memo opposing the nomenclature in the cause title.
Whether the subordinate judge has the power to correct the name in the cause title suo motu under the existing procedure.
Parties & counsel
- petitioner
K.Muthusamy
- respondent
Govindammal
Coram
C.V.KARTHIKEYAN
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court