Allowed

S.Prabhudoss, v. D.Jeyakodi @ Jeyaraj

Madras HC31 Oct 2022CRP(MD)/2061/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this civil revision petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner, who is the defendant in an original suit, sought expedite proceedings. The High Court, considering the allegations of a forged suit preventing burial of corpses, directed the Principal Subordinate Judge to dispose of the suit within six months.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the Principal Subordinate Judge, Dindigul to expeditiously dispose of O.S.No.87 of 2021 within six months.

S.Prabhudoss, Vs D.Jeyakodi @ Jeyaraj — Madras HC (2022) — LawSathi Research

¶1

CRP(MD)No.2061 of 2022

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 31.10.2022

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE B.PUGALENDHI

¶6

CRP(MD)No.2061 of 2022

¶7

S.Prabhudoss : Petitioner Vs.

¶8

D.Jeyakodi @ Jeyaraj : Respondent

¶9

PRAYER: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to expedite the proceedings in O.S.No.87 of 2021 on the file of the Principal Subordinate Court, Dindigul.

¶10

For Petitioner : Mr.J.Gunaseelanmuthiah For Respondent : Mr.J.Bharathi Veerakumar *****

¶11

ORDER

¶12

The petitioner is the defendant in the suit in O.S.No.87 of 2021, which was

¶13

filed by the respondent / plaintiff before the Principal Sub Court, Dindigul, for the relief of declaration and permanent injunction. The grievance of the petitioner is that by filing this suit, the respondent is preventing the petitioner and their men

¶14

1/4

¶15

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

¶16

CRP(MD)No.2061 of 2022

¶17

from burying the corpses in the suit schedule property and therefore, the petitioner has filed this revision petition seeking a direction for early disposal of the suit.

¶18

2.Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the suit schedule property is a burial ground, but, by creating a forged document, the respondent has filed the suit. In fact, the document, based on which the respondent claims right over the suit property, itself has been subsequently cancelled by the Sub Registrar.

¶19

3.Learned Counsel for the respondent refuted the allegations raised against him and submitted that there is no delay on their part. The pleadings have already been completed and the trial has also commenced. He has examined three witnesses so far and that he is not dragging on the proceedings.

¶20

4.Considering the rival submissions made and also the issue involved, there shall be a direction to the learned Principal Subordinate Judge, Dindigul, to expedite the proceedings in O.S.No.87 of 2021 and to dispose of the same, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶21

2/4

¶22

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

¶23

CRP(MD)No.2061 of 2022

¶24

Accordingly, this revision petition stands disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶25

Index : Yes / No 31.10.2022 Internet : Yes gk To The Principal Subordinate Judge, Dindigul.

¶26

3/4

¶27

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

¶28

CRP(MD)No.2061 of 2022

¶29

B.PUGALENDHI, J.

¶30

¶31

CRP(MD)No.2061 of 2022

¶32

31.10.2022

¶33

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

¶34

4/4

S.Prabhudoss, v. D.Jeyakodi @ Jeyaraj

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S.Prabhudoss, v. D.Jeyakodi @ Jeyaraj

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

Palanikumar Vs Manoramani

S.Aarthi Vs R.Magesh @ Manikandan

Pommeswari Vs Jothi Manikandan

S.Uma Maheswari Vs T.Senthilvel

A.Navaneetha Krishnan Vs S.Ramanavalakshmi

Sakthivel, Vs Malarkodi