The High Court closed the civil revision petition and connected miscellaneous petition. Both parties undertook to maintain the status quo pending the trial of the transferred suit and a connected testamento sobres (TOS).
Closed the civil revision petition and connected miscellaneous petition without costs.
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.
C.R.P.(PD)No.1684 of 2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 22.09.2023
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.LAKSHMINARAYANAN
C.R.P.(PD)No.1684 of 2016
and CMP.No.9008 of 2016
1.R.J.Haridoss
5.R.J.Krishnamoorthy
6.N.Neelavathi
7.R.J.Baskar
8.Sriram
... Petitioners
Vs.
1.N.Loganathan 2.Minor L.Harish Kumar Represented by his father & natural Guardian N.Loganathan ... Respondents
PRAYER: Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, to set aside the judgment and decree passed in I.A.No.22 of 2015 in O.S.No.5474 of 2015 dated 18.03.2016 on the file of the XVI Assistant City Civil Court, Chennai and allow I.A.No.22 of 2015 in O.S.No.5474 of 2015 on the file of the XVI Assistant City Civil Court, Chennai as prayed for.
1/4
C.R.P.(PD)No.1684 of 2016
For Petitioners : Mr.Prabhu Mukunth Arunkumar
For Respondents : Mr.P.Sreenivasulu
O R D E R
As per the orders of this Court dated 15.09.2023, both sides agree
that the suit in O.S.No.5474 of 2015 on the file of the XVIth Assistant City Civil Court, Chennai has been transferred to this Court. The said suit will be tried along with TOS.No.25 of 2020, which relates to the letters of administration of the Will of Mr.R.J.Mohan.
2.In this revision, the contention was that the suit is not maintainable since the probate proceedings have not ended in favour of the plaintiff. With the suit now having been transferred to the file of the original side of the Court to be tried along with TOS, nothing remains to be adjudicated in this revision.
3.At this stage, Mr.Prabhu Mukunth Arunkumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that taking advantage of the transfer of the suit, the plaintiff might interfere with the possession of the defendant.
4.Mr.P.Sreenivasulu, learned counsel appearing for the respondents
2/4
C.R.P.(PD)No.1684 of 2016
undertakes that status quo that prevails as on today will be maintained by his clients.
5.Mr.Prabhu Mukunth Arunkumar immediately reciprocated the same that his client too, who is in occupation of the first floor will not interfere with the occupation of the plaintiff on ground floor and viceversa. Suffice it to record the statement, this civil revision petition is closed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
22.09.2023 Index:Yes/No Speaking Order :Yes/No Neutral Citation:Yes/No vs To The XVI Assistant City Civil Court, Chennai
V.LAKSHMINARAYANAN,J.
3/4
C.R.P.(PD)No.1684 of 2016
vs
C.R.P.(PD)No.1684 of 2016 and CMP.No.9008 of 2016
22.09.2023
4/4
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the civil revision petition challenging the judgment in probate-related maintenance/suit is maintainable after the suit was transferred to the same court.
Whether the transfer of the suit necessitates the dismissal or closure of the revision petition.
R.J.Haridoss
N.Loganathan
V.LAKSHMINARAYANAN
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
