Dismissed

Periyasamy v. Muniyapillai

Madras HC23 Dec 2022CRP/956/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a civil revision petition under Article 227 appealing against an order dismissing a whisper comparison request as an abuse of process of court, the High Court found no infirmity in the lower court decision and dismissed the revision, directing the trial court to conclude the suit within six months.

What did the court decide?

The civil revision petition was dismissed. The trial court was directed to dispose of the suit within six months.

Periyasamy Vs Muniyapillai — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Madras HC (2022)

¶1

CRP.No.956 of 2019

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 23.12.2022

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN

¶6

CRP.No.956 of 2019 and CMP.No.13302 of 2020

¶7

1.Periyasamy 2.Kannan ... Petitioners Vs. Muniyapillai ... Respondent

¶8

PRAYER :

¶9

Civil Revision petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to set aside the fair and decretal orders dated 03.01.2019 in IA.No.549 of 2018 in OS.No.331 of 2010 on the file of the Principal District Munsif Court, Vridhachalam.

¶10

For Petitioners : Mr.KSL Narain

¶11

For Respondent : Mrs.R.Meenal

¶12

ORDER

¶13

This civil revision petition has been filed to set aside the fair and

¶14

decretal orders dated 03.01.2019 in IA.No.549 of 2018 in OS.No.331 of 2010

¶15

on the file of the Principal District Munsif Court, Vridhachalam.

¶16

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page 1 of 4

¶17

CRP.No.956 of 2019

¶18

¶19

Heard, the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel

¶20

for the respondent.

¶21

The petitioners are the defendants and the respondent is the plaintiff. The respondent filed suit for recovery of money on the mortgage. While pending the suit, after period of eight years, the petitioners filed petition to compare voice available in the compact disk with the sample voice of the respondent herein. According to the petitioners, before filing the suit, there was compromise negotiation arranged between the petitioners and the respondent and the said negotiation voice of the respondent was recorded.

¶22

It is seen that the petitioners admitted the execution of mortgage deed

¶23

and even ready to pay the principal amount with simple interest by the additional written statement. Thereafter, they came forward with the petition to compare the voice. Therefore, it is nothing but clear abuse of process of court and no purpose would be served if the voice is compared. Therefore, the court below rightly dismissed the petition and this Court finds no infirmity or illegality in the order passed by the court below.

¶24

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

Page 2 of 4

CRP.No.956 of 2019

Accordingly, this civil revision petition is dismissed. However, the

¶29

trial court is directed to dispose of the suit in OS.No.331 of 2010 within a period of six months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶30

23.12.2022

¶31

Index :Yes/No Internet : Yes/No Speaking order/non-speaking order lok

¶32

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

¶33

CRP.No.956 of 2019

¶34

G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.

¶35

lok

¶36

To The Principal District Munsif Court, Vridhachalam.

¶37

CRP.No.956 of 2019

¶38

23.12.2022

¶39

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

Periyasamy v. Muniyapillai

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Periyasamy v. Muniyapillai

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

Adam Sait and Abdullah Sait Vs v.Chelladurai

Mohamed Ansari Vs Nehru

Raniyammal Vs Lakshmiammal

i. S.Selvagandhi Vs K.G.Umasankari

Lakshmi Vs Semalayappa Gounder

G.v.Shridhar Vs K.R.Velu