Partly allowed

Mr.P.Mahedra v. Mr.Amith Agarwal and 2 others

Madras HC5 Sept 2023A/4484/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

On an application to exonerate impleaded government defendants in a suit between private parties, the court permitted the exoneration. Consequently, the application to dispense with notice under Section 80 CPC was deemed infructuous and closed. The registry was directed to file the suit. Also, the sub-court and principal registry were impleaded.

What did the court decide?

Permission granted to exonerate government defendants; notice application under Section 80 CPC closed as infructuous.

Mr.P.Mahedra Vs Mr.Amith Agarwal and 2 others — Execution and Attachment | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

A.No.4484 of 2023 in CS.DR.No.52453 of 2022

¶2

R.N.MANJULA, J.

¶3

The suit has been filed seeking for the following reliefs:

¶4

(a) directing the 1^st defendants to pay a sum of Rs.95,82,000/and interest at the rate of 12% per annum from 11-11-2020 to 17.05.2022 Rs.17,38,936 altogether a sum of Rs.1,13,20,936/along with interest at the rate of 12% per annum to the plaintiff till the date of realising the amount failing which create a charge over the suit.

¶5

(b) Grant permanent injunction restraining the defendant, his men agent, servant or anybody, in any manner, from making any alteration, any sale or alienation or making any encumbrance or dealing with the plaintiffs 1/6^th share of the suit schedule property

¶6

(c) Grant permanent injunction restraining the defendant, his men agent or anybody in any manner interfering with peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiffs 1/6^th share in connection with the suit property

¶7

and in which the government parties have been impleaded as defendants 2

¶8

and 3. In view of the same, the applicant / plaintiff has also filed an application to dispense notice under Section 80 CPC as against the defendants 2 and 3.

¶9

Page No.1 of 2 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶10

R.N.MANJULA, J.

¶11

jrs

¶12

2. Since the dispute is between two private parties, the government defendants themselves are not necessary. However, the learned counsel for the petitioner has chosen to exonerate defendants 2 and 3 and the permission to exonerate them is granted, defendants 2 and 3 are exonerated.

¶13

4. Since the government defendants 2 and 3 themselves have been exonerated, the application that has been filed to dispense notice under Section 80 CPC is unnecessary and infructuous. Hence, this application is closed as infructuous. So the Registry is directed to take the suit on file if it is otherwise in order.

¶14

05.09.2023

¶15

jrs

¶16

A.No.4484 of 2023 in CS.DR.No.52453 of 2022

¶17

Page No.2 of 2 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Mr.P.Mahedra v. Mr.Amith Agarwal and 2 others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr.P.Mahedra v. Mr.Amith Agarwal and 2 others

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

Subodh Kumar Bhutoria Vs Vinod Kumar Bhutoria and 11 others

S.Satyanarayanan @ S.Satyanarayan Vs Uma Vijay and 2 Others

M/S.Crescent Housing P Ltd. and Another Vs M.Jamaludeen and 9 Others

F.Sheela Roselin Vs Alphonsus Christopher Francis and 2 Others

Praveen Venkata Mellacheruvu Vs No Respondent

K.Senthamizh Selvi Vs No Respondent