Dismissed

Krishnamoorthy v. Perumal Naidu (Died)

Madras HC4 Jul 2022CRP(MD)/1122/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution against a judgment confirming a rent control order was dismissed for non-prosecution due to absence of the petitioner on multiple hearing dates. The matter was declared closed as the petitioner failed to appear.

What did the court decide?

Civil Revision Petition dismissed for non-prosecution; connected miscellaneous petition closed.

Krishnamoorthy Vs Perumal Naidu (Died) — Landlord and Tenant | Madras HC (2022)

¶1

CRP(NPD)(MD)No.1122 of 2011

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 04.07.2022

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE B.PUGALENDHI

¶6

CRP(NPD)(MD)No.1122 of 2011 and

¶7

M.P.(MD)No.1 of 2011

Krishnamoorthy

... Petitioner

versus

Perumal Naidu (died) 2. V.P.Nagaraj 3. V.P.Jeyakumar 4. V.P.Parasuraman Siva (died) 5. V.P.Senthilkumar 6. S.Thilagavathi 7. K.Rajeswari (R2 to R7 are brought on record as Legal heirs of the deceased sole respondent vide order dated 20.12.2021) 8. Chitra 9. Akilandeswari 10. Minor Monisha (R8 to R10 are brought on record as Legal heirs of the deceased 4^th respondent vide order dated 20.12.2021)

¶12

... Respondents

¶13

1/4

¶14

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

¶15

CRP(NPD)(MD)No.1122 of 2011

¶16

Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, against the Judgment and Decree dated 21.04.2011 made in R.C.A.No.102 of 2004 on the file of the Rent Control Appellate Authority, Tiruchirappalli, confirming the order dated 20.08.2004 made in R.C.O.P.No.3 of 2003 on the file of the District Munsif, Tiruchirapalli.

¶17

For Petitioner : No appearance For R2, R3, R5 to R10 : M/s.J.Maria Roseline

¶18

ORDER

¶19

This Civil Revision Petition is filed against the Judgment and Decree dated 21.04.2011, passed by the Rent Control Appellate Authority, Tiruchirappalli, in R.C.A.No.102 of 2004, confirming the order dated 20.08.2004 passed by the District Munsif, Tiruchirapalli, in R.C.O.P.No.3 of 2003.

¶20

This Civil Revision Petition has been filed in the year 2011.

¶21

When the matter came up for hearing 30.09.2019, it was represented

¶22

2/4

¶23

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

¶24

CRP(NPD)(MD)No.1122 of 2011

¶25

that the sole respondent died and for taking steps, the matter stood adjourned for taking steps. Thereafter, on 13.04.2022, when the matter was taken up for hearing, there was no representation for the petitioner. Subsequently, on 23.06.2022, at the request of the learned counsel for the petitioner, the matter was adjourned to 23.06.2022. Again, when

¶26

the matter came up for hearing on 30.06.2022, there was no representation for the petitioner. Therefore, the matter was directed to be listed today under the caption for dismissal. Even today, there is no representation for the petitioner. Hence, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed for non-prosecution. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is also closed.

04.07.2022

ogy

3/4

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

¶31

CRP(NPD)(MD)No.1122 of 2011

¶32

B.PUGALENDHI, J.

¶33

ogy

¶34

CRP(NPD)(MD)No.1122 of 2011

¶35

04.07.2022

¶36

4/4

¶37

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

Krishnamoorthy v. Perumal Naidu (Died)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Krishnamoorthy v. Perumal Naidu (Died)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

B.Gokula Divya Roopa Vs K.Rajeshkumar

Prabakaran @ China Prabhakaran Vs The Inspector of Police

Aamina Beevi Vs Jahir Hussain

C. Rajamani, Vs The Government of Tamilnadu

Parvathavarthani (Died) Vs K. Uthiram Pillai

S.Umaiyorubagam Vs Saravanakumar