Krishnamurthy v. Pandurangan
Case brief
What is this about?
Single judge allowed a petition to recall an order dismissing a composite motion as not pressed, subject to directions to regularly bring deceased appellants' legal representatives on record.
What did the court decide?
Petition to recall the order of dismissal of C.M.P. as not pressed is allowed; appeal against abatement pending impleadment of legal representatives.
What the court decided
1
C.M.P.No.20626 of 2018 in S.A.No.119 of 1999
P.T.ASHA, J
This petition is filed seeking to recall the judgement dated 21.01.2015, which was dismissed as withdrawn.
- A perusal of the records would show that the
petitioners/appellants on coming to know about the judgment dated 21.01.2015, have taken steps to get the return of the papers and change of vakalat from the erstwhile counsel. However, it appears that the erstwhile counsel had not immediately entrusted the brief back to the party nor given his consent for change of vakalat. The petitioners were therefore constrained to file a petition in C.M.P.No.1447 of 2016 to revoke the vakalat given to the erstwhile counsel. For 2 years, the petition was pending and ultimately on 04.09.2018, consent was given by the erstwhile counsel and the same was reported to the Court and the C.M.P was dismissed as not pressed. This was immediately followed by the present petition seeking to recall the order of dismissal, which is the subject matter
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis now before this Court.
2
- Considering the reasons cogently set out, this Court is
Issues for consideration
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the petition to recall the order dismissing C.M.P. as not pressed should be allowed in view of the appellants' desire to render justice.
Parties & counsel
- appellant
Petitioners/Appellants
- respondent
Respondents
Coram
P.T.ASHA
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court