Dismissed

Sree Latha v. R. Suresh

Madras HC15 Jun 2023CRP/1736/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed the civil revision petition filed under Article 227 as infructuous. The court observed that during the pendency of the matter, the tenant-petitioner had already handed over possession of the landlord's property to the landlord in execution proceedings, rendering the revision devoid of purpose.

What did the court decide?

The Civil Revision Petition was dismissed and the connected Miscellaneous Petition was closed as the petition became infructuous due to the delivery of possession by the petitioner.

Sree Latha Vs R. Suresh — Execution and Attachment | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

C.R.P.No.1736 of 2023

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 15.06.2023

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE D.NAGARJUN

¶6

C.R.P.No.1736 of 2023 and CMP.No.11236 of 2023

Sree Latha

... Petitioner

Vs.

R.Suresh ... Respondent

¶11

PRAYER: The Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, praying to allow the civil revision petition and set aside the order dated 13.10.2022 in R.L.T.A.No.81 of 2022 in R.L.T.O.P.No.304 of 2021 on the file of VII Additional City Civil Court, Chennai.

¶12

O R D E R

¶13

This Revision Petition is filed aggrieved by the orders passed in R.L.T.A. No. 81 of 2022 dated 13.10.2022, which has confirmed the orders in R.L.T.O.P. No. 304 of 2021 on the file of VII Additional City Civil Court,

¶14

Chennai.

¶15

1/4

¶16

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

¶17

C.R.P.No.1736 of 2023

¶18

When the matter was taken up for hearing, the learned counsel

¶19

appearing for the revision petitioner has reported that during the pendency of the appeal petition, the respondent/landlord has filed an execution petition and in its proceedings, the schedule mentioned property has already been delivered to the respondent/landlord by the petitioner.

¶20

The learned counsel on record for the respondent/landlord, who was also present, had requested to pass over the matter as he would get instructions from his client. Accordingly, after lunch, when the matter was taken up at 2.15 p.m., the learned counsel for the respondent has reported that as submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the tenant in this case, who is the petitioner herein, has handed over the possession of the schedule mentioned property to the respondent during the summer vacation. The learned counsel for the petitioner requested to dismiss the petition recording the present status.

¶21

Considering the circumstances, this petition is dismissed as it has become infructuous on account of fact that the possession of the schedule

¶22

2/4

¶23

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

¶24

C.R.P.No.1736 of 2023

¶25

mentioned property has been delivered by the petitioner/tenant to the respondent/landlord. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. No costs.

¶26

15.06.2023

¶27

Speaking/Non-speaking order Index : Yes/No Neutral Citation: Yes/No kv

¶28

¶29

The VII Additional City Civil Court, Chennai.

¶30

3/4

¶31

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

¶32

C.R.P.No.1736 of 2023

¶33

D.NAGARJUN,J.

¶34

¶35

C.R.P.No.1736 of 2023

¶36

15.06.2023

¶37

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

¶38

4/4

Sree Latha v. R. Suresh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sree Latha v. R. Suresh

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

R.Prabavathy Vs M.Sivasankari

S.Shalini Vs K.P.Harish

B. Narasimha Rao Vs M. Vasu

U. Selvaganapathy Vs J. Divya @ Jaya Preethi

Jeelani Fathima Vs Latheef Sheikh

R. Dinesh Rao, Vs M. Haritha