Disposed

A.R.Sivakumar, v. a.v.Rajaram

Madras HC27 Oct 2022CRP(MD)/1972/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court, under Article 227, directed the Principal Subordinate Judge, Madurai, to dispose of O.S.No.749 of 2017 within six months. The suit, filed in 2017, was delayed by interlocutory applications. Both parties, aged 50 and 80 respectively, sought early disposal.

What did the court decide?

Direction to dispose O.S.No.749 of 2017 within six months from the date of receipt of the order.

A.R.Sivakumar, Vs a.v.Rajaram — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Madras HC (2022)

¶1

CRP(NPD)(MD)No.1972 of 2022

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 27.10.2022

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE B.PUGALENDHI

¶6

CRP(PD)(MD)No.1972 of 2022

¶7

1.A.R.Sivakumar 2.A.S.Sreelakshumi

... Petitioners

A.V.Rajaram

... Respondent

Prayer: Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, to expedite O.S.No.749 of 2017, on the file of the Principal Subordinate Judge, Madurai within the stipulated time.

¶13

For Petitioner : Mr.J.Gunaseelanmuthiah For Respondent : Mr.R.Aravind Raj

¶14

O R D E R

¶15

The defendants in O.S.No.749 of 2017 on the file of the

¶16

Principal Subordinate Judge, Madurai has approached this Court for early disposal of the suit within a reasonable time.

¶17

1/4

¶18

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

¶19

CRP(NPD)(MD)No.1972 of 2022

¶20

2.The learned counsel appearing for the

¶21

petitioners/defendants submits that the above suit was filed by the respondent/plaintiff for the relief of permanent injunction in the year 2017, wherein, pleadings have been completed in the year 2018 and trial was also commenced during 2019. The grievance of the petitioner is that the respondent/plaintiff filed several interlocutory applications in the suit in order to drag on the proceedings. Since the first petitioner is aged about 50, the learned counsel prays for early disposal of the suit.

¶22

3.The learned counsel appearing for the respondent submits

¶23

that the respondent/plaintiff is also 80 years old and hence he seeks early disposal of the above suit.

¶24

4.In view of the submissions made by either side and also

¶25

considering the fact that the suit is of the year 2017, there shall be a direction to the learned Principal Subordinate Judge, Madurai to dispose

¶26

2/4

¶27

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

¶28

CRP(NPD)(MD)No.1972 of 2022

¶29

of the suit in O.S.No.749 of 2017, within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶30

With the above direction, this Civil Revision Petition is disposed of. No costs.

¶31

27.10.2022

¶32

Index : Yes / No. Internet : Yes / No. vrn To The Principal Subordinate Judge, Madurai

¶33

3/4

¶34

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

¶35

CRP(NPD)(MD)No.1972 of 2022

¶36

B.PUGALENDHI, J.

¶37

vrn

¶38

Order made in CRP(PD)(MD)No.1972 of 2022

¶39

27.10.2022

¶40

4/4

¶41

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

A.R.Sivakumar, v. a.v.Rajaram

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

A.R.Sivakumar, v. a.v.Rajaram

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

S.Jacob Selvin Jebaraj Vs P.Jebaselan Danial Raj

S.Madhivadhani Vs Prabhu

R.Rajendran, Vs K.Phanindra Reddy Ias.

R.L.Raju, Vs a.Jeyamani

S. Krishnan (Died), 1. Chandran, Vs Issac (Died), Thangamani alias Thavamani (Died), Krishnan (Died), 1. Chinnakutti

Saravana Perumal (Died) Vs the District Collector