A civil revision petition filed under Section 115 CPC against a decree in a suit involving deceased parties was closed by this court accepting the petitioner's counsel's submission that there was no response from the legal heirs.
Routing note on the order to the Court below, which is discretionary under Section 260 CPC.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
CRP(PD)(MD)No.503 of 2017
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 05.07.2022
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE B.PUGALENDHI
CRP(NPD)(MD)No.503 of 2017 and C.M.P(MD).No.2361 of 2017
Annamma Chacko ... Revision Petitioner
versus
1.Saramma Thomas
2.Lizzy Varghese
3.Sheela Pappachan
... Respondents
Civil Revision Petition filed under Section 115 of Civil Procedure Code, against the Fair and Decreetal order passed in I.A.No.389 of 2013 in O.S.No.158 of 2012 on the file of the Ist Additional District Munsif Court, Kuzhithurai dated 03.08.2013.
For Petitioner : Mr.S.Venkatesh
For Respondent : No-appearance
1/3
CRP(PD)(MD)No.503 of 2017
ORDER
The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner and the respondents are dead and there is no response from the legal heirs of the petitioner.
05.07.2022
ssb Index : Yes / No Internet: Yes / No
To
Ist Additional District Munsif Court, Kuzhithurai
2/3
CRP(PD)(MD)No.503 of 2017
B.PUGALENDHI, J.
ssb
CRP(PD)(MD)No.503 of 2017
05.07.2022
3/3
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the Civil Revision Petition should be closed due to non-appearance of legal heirs of the deceased parties.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Annamma Chacko
Saramma Thomas
Lizzy Varghese
Sheela Pappachan
B. Pugalendhi
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
