Dismissed

Rathina Kumar v. Sellammal

Madras HC20 Sept 2023CRP/895/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Madras disposed of two civil revision petitions challenging the rejection of plaints in underlying civil suits. The court dismissed both revision petitions, reserving liberty for alternative applications, and closed connected miscellaneous petitions.

What did the court decide?

civil revision petitions dismissed; liberty reserved to move applications for rejection of plaints per CPC rules; connected MIS closed.

Rathina Kumar Vs Sellammal — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

CRP Nos.895 of 2020 and 2101 of 2016

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 20.09.2023

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE Mr. JUSTICE V.LAKSHMINARAYANAN

¶6

C.R.P.Nos.895 of 2020 and 2101 of 2016 and CMP Nos.4735 of 2020 and 10983 of 2016

¶7

CRP No.895 of 2020:

¶8

Rathina Kumar .... Petitioner

¶9

¶10

1.Sellammal

¶11

2.Gopalakrishnan

¶12

3.Navakumar (deceased)

¶13

4.The Sub Registrar,

¶14

Mettupalayam

¶15

5.N.Vasanthamani

¶16

6.N.Naveen

¶17

7.N.Gnana Sanjeev

¶18

(Respondents 5 to 7 were brought on record as the legal representatives of the deceased 3^rd respondent vide order dated 20.09.2023 in CMP No.4637 of 2021 in CRP No.895 of 2020)

¶19

... Respondents

¶20

CRP No.2101 of 2016

¶21

Rathnakumar .... Petitioner

¶22

¶23

N.Chellammal

¶24

2.N.Gopalakrishnan

¶25

1/4

¶26

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

¶27

CRP Nos.895 of 2020 and 2101 of 2016

¶28

3.N.Navakumar

¶29

4.Rajendran

¶30

5.Saraswathi

¶31

6.Revathi Devi

¶32

7.Kanagaraj

¶33

8.N.Vasanthamani

¶34

9.N.Naveen

¶35

10.N.Gnana Sanjeev

¶36

(Respondents 8 to 10 were brought on record as the legal representatives of the deceased

¶37

3^rd respondent vide order dated 20.09.2023 in CMP No.4638 of 2021 in CRP No.2101 of 2016)

¶38

.. Respondents

¶39

PRAYER: Civil Revision Petitions filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to reject the plaint in O.S.No.103 of 2019 (in respect of CRP No.895 of 2020) on the file of Sub Court at Mettupalayam and O.S.No.1058 of 2015 (in respect of CRP No.2101 of 2016) on the file of III Additional Subordinate Judge at Coimbatore, now pending on the file of Camp Court at Mettupalayam.

¶40

For Petitioner : Mr.T.Murugamanickam in both the Senior Counsel for revisions Mr.Ma.Pa.Thangavel For Respondents : Mr.S.Saravanan in CRP No.895 of For R.1 and R.2 2020 R.3 – died – steps taken Mr.B.Tamil Nidhi AGP (CS) For R.4

¶41

2/4

¶42

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

¶43

CRP Nos.895 of 2020 and 2101 of 2016

¶44

For Respondents : Mr.S.Saravanan in CRP No.2101/ 2016 For R.1 and R.2 R.3 – died – steps taken R.4, R.7 – Served R.5 – Refused R.6 – Not ready in Notice

¶45

COMMON ORDER

¶46

Reserving the liberty of the civil revision petitioner to move an application under Order 7 Rule 11 or under Order 6 Rule 16, both the Civil Revision Petitions are dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

¶47

20.09.2023 2/2 Index:Yes/No Speaking order/Non-speaking order sr

¶48

¶49

The Sub Court, Mettupalayam 2. The III Additional Subordinate Court, Coimbatore, 3. Camp Court, Mettupalayam.

¶50

3/4

¶51

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

¶52

CRP Nos.895 of 2020 and 2101 of 2016

¶53

V.LAKSHMINARAYANAN,J.

¶54

¶55

C.R.P.Nos.895 of 2020 and 2101 of 2016

¶56

2/2

¶57

20.09.2023

¶58

4/4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Rathina Kumar v. Sellammal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rathina Kumar v. Sellammal

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

S.Anandaraj Vs State Represented by

Nagarajan Vs Saminatha Pillai

Ponni Vs Jaya

K. N. Balan Vs a. Chandran

The Secretary Vs the Deputy Registrar of

K.N. Balan Vs a. Chandran