Disposed

R.Jayaprakash v. Maadhu

Madras HC10 Nov 2022CRP/2754/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a Civil Revision Petition under Article 227, Justice T.V. ThamilSelvi directed the District Munsif, Pennagaram, to dispose of an underlying suit (O.S.No.66 of 2015) within four months of receiving this order, considering the age of parties and lack of respondent representation.

What did the court decide?

Direction to District Munsif, Pennagaram to dispose the suit within four months of receiving the order.

R.Jayaprakash Vs Maadhu — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Madras HC (2022)

¶1

C.R.P. No. 2754 of 2018

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 10.11.2022

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE T.V.THAMILSELVI

¶6

C.R.P.No. 2754 of 2018

¶7

R.Jayaprakash, S/o. Raji

¶8

... Petitioner

¶9

Versus

¶10

Maadhu, S/o. Sooran

¶11

Rajendran, S/o. Palani

¶12

V.P.Samraj, S/o. Perumal ... Respondents

¶13

PRAYER : Civil Revision Petition filed under Art. 227 of Constitution of India, praying to direct the Hon'ble District Munsif Court at Pennagaram to dispose of the original suit in O.S.No.66 of 2015 within a stipulated time as framed by this Hon'ble Court on merits and in accordance with law.

¶14

1/4

¶15

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

¶16

C.R.P. No. 2754 of 2018

¶17

For Petitioner : Mr.R.Jayaprakash For Respondents : No appearance

¶18

O R D E R

¶19

This Revision Petition has been filed seeking a direction directing the trial judge to dispose the original suit in O.S.No.66 of 2015 within a stipulated time as framed by this court.

¶20

Today, when the matter taken up for hearing, the learned counsel

¶21

for petitioner appeared and submitted that considering the age of parties to the suit, the plaintiff wanted to dispose the suit as expeditiously as possible. Despite notice served on the respondents, there is no representation on the side of respondents.

¶22

On perusal of records, it is seen that the plaintiff filed a suit in the year of 2015 for the relief of declaration and mandatory injunction and the defendants are also 50 years old. On considering the same and also considering submissions of learned counsel for revision petitioner, this court is inclined to issue a direction directing the learned District Munsif

¶23

2/4

¶24

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

¶25

C.R.P. No. 2754 of 2018

¶26

cum Judicial Magistrate, Pennagaram, to dispose the case within a period of four months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Accordingly, this Civil Revision Petition is disposed of. No costs.

¶27

10.11.2022

¶28

Index : Yes/No Internet: Yes/No Speaking/Non Speaking order rpp To

¶29

District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Pennagaram.

¶30

3/4

¶31

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

¶32

C.R.P. No. 2754 of 2018

¶33

T.V.THAMILSELVI, J.

¶34

rpp

¶35

C.R.P.No. 2754 of 2018

¶36

10.11.2022

¶37

4/4

¶38

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

R.Jayaprakash v. Maadhu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

R.Jayaprakash v. Maadhu

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

Nagaraj Vs Mohammed Noorudeen

Parthiban Vs State Rep by

Thamim Feroz Vs the Inspector of Police

Muthukumaresan Vs Govindammal

Panneerselvam Vs the Dist Collector

Mari Gounder Died, Vs Daicy Priyanatha Died