Dismissed

R.Venugopal v. Raj Trading Co.

Madras HC2 Aug 2023CRP/518/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed the civil revision petition under Section 115 CPC, holding that since the underlying execution petition was dismissed for default, the court could not interfere. The petitioner was granted liberty to file a restoration application of the revision once the main petition is restored.

What did the court decide?

Civil revision petition dismissed with liberty to file restoration application if the main petition is restored.

R.Venugopal Vs Raj Trading Co. — Execution and Attachment | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

C.R.P.(NPD)No.518 of 2011

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 02.08.2023

¶4

CORAM :

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V. LAKSHMINARAYANAN

¶6

C.R.P(NPD)No.518 of 2011 and MP.No.1 of 2011

¶7

R.Venugopal represented by his power of attorney holder D.Ramakrishnan

¶8

... Petitioner

¶9

¶10

1.Raj Trading Co., Proprietor

¶11

K.A.Ruhamathullah

¶12

2.Sri Ram & Co.,

¶13

D.No.605 & 606 Sathy road,

¶14

Erode Town

¶15

3.Sri Ram & Partner

¶16

Saraswathi,

¶17

W/o S.Balasubramaniam D.No.605 & 606 Sathy road,

¶18

Erode Town.

¶19

4.Sri Ram & Co., Partner

¶20

S.Shanmugasundaram

¶21

D.No.605 & 606 Sathy road,

¶22

Erode Town.

¶23

1/4

¶24

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

¶25

C.R.P.(NPD)No.518 of 2011

.. Respondents

5.B.Saraswathi,

6.S.Vasanthamala

Petitions filed under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure against the Fair and Final Order passed in E.A.No.69 of 2008 in E.A.No.292 of 2006 in E.P.No.220 of 2005 on the file of the Ist Additional Sub Court, Erode dated 04.01.2011.

¶30

For Petitioner : Mr.A.Sundaravadhanan For Respondents : R1 to R5 – Not ready notice No Appearance (for R6)

¶31

O R D E R

¶32

Mr.A.Sundaravadhanan, learned counsel for the petitioner submits

¶33

that E.P.No.220 of 2005 before the I Additional Subordinate Judge, Erode has been dismissed for default. The present revision arises against an application filed in E.P.No.220 of 2005. Since the main E.P. itself has been dismissed for default, I am afraid, I cannot interfere with the impugned order at this stage. Hence, this civil revision petition is dismissed.

¶34

2.It is made clear that if E.P.No.220 of 2005 is restored, it is open

¶35

to the petitioner to file a restoration application of the civil revision

¶36

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

¶37

2/4

¶38

C.R.P.(NPD)No.518 of 2011

¶39

petition. Granting that liberty, the civil revision petition is dismissed. No

¶40

costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶41

02.08.2023

¶42

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

¶43

¶44

The Ist Additional Sub Court, Erode.

¶45

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

¶46

3/4

¶47

C.R.P.(NPD)No.518 of 2011

¶48

V. LAKSHMINARAYANAN,J.

¶49

¶50

C.R.P(NPD)No.518 of 2011 and MP.No.1 of 2011

¶51

02.08.2023

¶52

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

¶53

4/4

R.Venugopal v. Raj Trading Co.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

R.Venugopal v. Raj Trading Co.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

E.Kasthuri Vs D.Suriyakanth

A.Shanmugam Vs Palani Achari (Died)

S.Prankia Vs S.Deppan Sakthivel

M/S.Inderlok Hotel Pvt. Ltd. Vs the Commissioner

J.Kishore Kumar Vs a.S.Vijay Anand

Ayyammal Vs Poorani