Allowed

C.Manoharan v. K.Venkatesan

Madras HC8 Nov 2022CMP/2357/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court-instantia allowed a Civil Miscellaneous Petition to restore a earlier dismissed Civil Revision Petition. The dismissal resulted from the petitioner entry a new lawyer but failing t appear d the pandemic. The court considered the petitioner's shift of counsel and pandemic travel issues. Noting the petitioner's prior default record and a prior R.C.O.P. (compromise), the judge inclined to a

What did the court decide?

The Civil Miscellaneous Petition was allowed to restore the Civil Revision Petition No.4249 of 2018.

C.Manoharan Vs K.Venkatesan — Property and Title | Madras HC (2022)

¶1

C.M.P. No. 2357 of 2021 in

¶2

C.M.P. No. 2357 of 2021 in C.R.P. No. 4249 of 2018

¶3

C.R.P.No.4249 of 2018

¶4

T.V.THAMILSELVI, J.

¶5

This Civil Miscellaneous Petition has been filed seeking to set aside the order dated 29.07.2020 dismissing the above Civil Revision Petition for non-prosecution.

¶6

Mr.T.Saikrishnan, learned counsel for revision petitioner submitted that the above C.R.P. came for admission on 04.01.2019 and notice ordered to the respondents and adjourned to 07.02.2019. Thereafter, the matter was not listed till January 2020, however, the petitioner got return of bundle along with change of vakalat from the earlier counsel on 25.01.2020 and taking steps to engage a new counsel. In the meanwhile, due to Covid-19 pandemic, he was not in a position to travel to Chennai and engage a new counsel. During the end of December 2020, the petitioner engaged the present counsel on record to contest the above C.R.P. However, due to nonappearance on behalf of petitioner, the C.R.P. was dismissed for nonprosecution and the same is neither willful nor wanton. Now, he has filed the above petition to restore the above C.R.P.

¶7

1/3

¶8

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

¶9

C.M.P. No. 2357 of 2021 in C.R.P. No. 4249 of 2018

¶10

Mr. Karthik Ranganathan, learned counsel for 1^st respondent appeared and submitted that this is the third time, the tenant purposely allowed the above C.R.P. for default. Because of this, they could not enjoy the fruits of decree. Hence, he raised objections in allowing this petition.

¶11

Considering the fact that in the year of 2008, R.C.O.P. was filed by

¶12

the tenant and as per the submissions of learned counsel that there was a compromise between the tenant and landlord, to reach the finality, this Court is inclined to allow this petition and to restore the Civil Revision Petition.

08.11.2022

rpp

2/3

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

¶17

C.M.P. No. 2357 of 2021 in C.R.P. No. 4249 of 2018

¶18

T.V.THAMILSELVI, J.

¶19

rpp

¶20

C.M.P.No.2357 of 2021 in

¶21

C.R.P.No.4249 of 2018

¶22

08.11.2022

¶23

3/3

¶24

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

C.Manoharan v. K.Venkatesan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

C.Manoharan v. K.Venkatesan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M.Kesavan Vs Dhanasekar

Murugan Vs M.Sirajuddin Syed

A/M Arunchaleswarar Vs Mangayarkarasi

N.Ravichandran Vs Manonmani

Poongodi Vs S.Thangavel

S.M.S.Bucary Wakf-Al-Aulad Estate Vs Sundaram Constructions