Dismissed

K.Subramaniam v. M/S.M.G.Enterprises

Madras HC13 Dec 2022CRP/2160/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed this Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The petition challenged an order dismissing an application to implead parties 2 to 6. The Court held the order was fair and decreetal as there was no material connecting them to the pro-note, allowing the petitioner to examine them as witnesses.

What did the court decide?

The Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is dismissed. No costs.

K.Subramaniam Vs M/S.M.G.Enterprises — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Madras HC (2022)

¶1

C.R.P.No.2160 of 2019

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 13.12.2022

¶4

CORAM

¶5

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

¶6

C.R.P.No.2160 of 2019

¶7

K.Subramaniam .. Petitioner

¶8

Vs.

¶9

1.M/s.M.G.Enterprises, Registered partnership Firm, Represented by its Partner, Abhay Dhoka, having their office at Old No.12, New No.14, Lakshmi Narasimhan Street, T.Nagar,

¶10

Chennai – 600 017.

¶11

2.Mittalal Dhoka

¶12

3.Rikhabchand Dhoka

¶13

4.Mahavirchand Dhoka

¶14

5.Gouthamchand Dhoka

¶15

6.T.R.Pachamuthu

¶16

.. Respondents

¶17

Prayer:- Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India to set aside the fair and decreetal order passed in I.A.No.14715 of 2016 in O.S.No.12057 of 2010 dated 14.09.2018 on the file of the V Additional Judge, City Civil Court at Chennai.

¶18

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

¶19

Page 1 of 4

¶20

C.R.P.No.2160 of 2019

¶21

For Petitioner : Mr.A.Abdul Rahman

¶22

ORDER

¶23

This Civil Revision Petition has been filed as against the fair and decreetal order passed in I.A.No.14715 of 2016 in O.S.No.12057 of 2010 dated 14.09.2018 on the file of the V Additional Judge, City Civil Court at Chennai, thereby dismissing the petition to implead the respondents 2 to 6 as defendants 2 to 6 in the said suit.

¶24

The first respondent herein filed a suit for recovery of money as against the petitioner herein on the strength of the pro-note.

¶25

The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner

¶26

never borrowed any amount and during the execution of agreement for sale, the said pro-note was obtained from the petitioner. Therefore, no amount was borrowed separately from the first respondent herein and as such the parties to the sale agreement are necessary parties to the present suit.

¶27

It is seen from the records, though, the respondents 2 to 6 are the

¶28

parties to the agreement for sale, there is no material to connect them with the present suit pro-note.

¶29

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

¶30

Page 2 of 4

¶31

C.R.P.No.2160 of 2019

¶32

Therefore, the Court below rightly dismissed the application and this Court finds no infirmity or illegality in the order passed by the Court below. However, it is open to the petitioner to examine them as his witness, if so advised.

¶33

Accordingly, this Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No costs.

¶34

13.12.2022

¶35

Speaking/Non-speaking order Index : Yes/No Internet : Yes/No mn

¶36

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page 3 of 4

¶37

C.R.P.No.2160 of 2019

¶38

G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN,J.

¶39

¶40

¶41

The V Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai.

¶42

C.R.P.No.2160 of 2019

¶43

13.12.2022

¶44

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page 4 of 4

K.Subramaniam v. M/S.M.G.Enterprises

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.Subramaniam v. M/S.M.G.Enterprises

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

Marappa Gounder(Died) S/O.Sellappa G Vs Raja Gounder (died)**

The Managing Director Vs Vijitha

Ramasamy Vs Valli

V.Vishnugopal Vs M.Perumal

E.Khader Sherif Vs Munusamy

S.Ananthan Vs S.Kathirvel