Dismissed

M.Udayakumar v. Renugadevi

Madras HC17 Jul 2023CRP/2383/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court dismissed a civil revision petition filed by a plaintiff seeking to set aside a trial court's rejection of an interim application for signature comparison. The Court held the revision was an attempt to protract proceedings in a suit filed in 2014.

What did the court decide?

Revision petition dismissed; parties directed to cooperate for expeditious disposal of the suit.

M.Udayakumar Vs Renugadevi — Specific Performance | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

C.R.P.No.2383 of 2023

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 17.07.2023

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE V.BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN

¶6

C.R.P.No.2383 of 2023 and C.M.P.No.14884 of 2023

M.Udayakumar

... Petitioner

Versus

Renugadevi

... Respondent

Prayer: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, to set aside the order passed in I.A.No.3 of 2021 in O.S.No.99 of 2014 dated 07.02.2023 by the V Additional District Judge, Coimbatore.

¶13

For Petitioner : Mr. J.Franklin

¶14

ORDER

¶15

The plaintiff in O.S.No.99 of 2014 filed the revision questioning the

¶16

judgment and decree dated 07.02.2023 made in I.A.No.3 of 2021 by the

¶17

1/4

¶18

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

¶19

C.R.P.No.2383 of 2023

¶20

learned V Additional District Judge, Coimbatore.

¶21

The case of the petitioner is that he entered into an agreement of sale dated 01.03.2013 with the defendant, she being the owner of the suit schedule property, having purchased the same vide sale deed dated 26.12.2011. The sale price is fixed at Rs.20,00,000/- and he paid an advance amount of Rs.18,00,000/-. The time limit for completing the sale transaction is eleven months. As per the agreement, the defendant agreed to construct new building to an extent of 1300 sq.ft. in ground floor and first floor. But the defendant failed to execute the sale deed, but demanded an additional sum of Rs.5,00,000/-, which is not lawful. Though the plaintiff was ready to perform his part of contract, the defendant had been postponing the compliance of her part of contract. Hence, the legal notice was issued on 21.01.2014 calling upon her to execute the sale deed, after receiving the balance sum of Rs.2,00,000/-, but the same was returned as “No known”. Thus, the suit for specific performance and permanent injunction was laid in O.S.No.99 of 2014, in which I.A.No.3 of 2021 was filed praying to send the subject sale agreement along with sale deed dated 26.12.2011 to forensic lab through Advocate Commissioner for comparing of signature. Dismissal of

¶22

2/4

¶23

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

¶24

C.R.P.No.2383 of 2023

¶25

the same led to the filing of the present revision.

¶26

Heard both sides and perused the materials placed before this

¶27

Court.

¶28

At the outset, it is to be stated that the reason on which I.A.No.3 of 2021 was dismissed that the plaintiff filed the petition belatedly with a view to protract the proceedings. The Trial Court culled out the dates, on which the suit was posted for trial and it was dismissed for non-prosecution and restored to file. Thus, after giving so many opportunities, the trial is going on in the suit which is of the year 2014. But the plaintiff chose to file the interim application only in the year 2021, which is nothing a delaying tactics adopted by the plaintiff.

¶29

This Court is also of the view that the plaintiff had filed the present petition in the year 2023 only to protract the suit proceedings which is of the year 2011. Hence, twhe same cannot be appreciated by this Court and there is no merit in the revision.

¶30

3/4

¶31

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

¶32

C.R.P.No.2383 of 2023

¶33

V.BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN, J., jai

¶34

Accordingly, this revision petition is dismissed. The parties are directed to co-operate for the expeditious disposal of the suit proceedings. No Costs. Consequently connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶35

17.07.2023

¶36

jai Index: Yes/No Internet: Yes/No Neutral Citation: Yes/No To The Additional District Judge, Coimbatore.

¶37

C.R.P.No.2383 of 2023

¶38

17.07.2023

¶39

4/4

¶40

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

M.Udayakumar v. Renugadevi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.Udayakumar v. Renugadevi

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.Chinnasamy Vs Tamilnadu State Transport

R.Subhalakshmi Vs M.Vishnuvardhanen

M.Duraikannu Vs T.Rani

N.Kalaimathi Vs S.Nagarajan

K.Khalid Ahmed Sheriff Vs Saifulla

Pottiammal(Died) Vs Subbammal