Dismissed

Marimuthu v. Velmurugan(Died)

Madras HC16 Feb 2023CRP(MD)/1355/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Civil revision petitions filed under Article 227 challenging original suits regarding theatre usage were dismissed as infructuous. The court observed that the related partition suit filed by the respondent was dismissed for default, rendering the revision petitions devoid of substantive grounds. The petitioner was allowed to revive them if the partition suit is restored.

What did the court decide?

Civil Revision Petitions CRP(MD)Nos.1355 and 1356 of 2014 dismissed as infructuous. Liberty granted to file revive petitions if restoration filed in trial court.

Marimuthu Vs Velmurugan(Died) — Property and Title | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

CRP(MD)Nos.1355 and 1356 of 2014

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 16.02.2023

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE L.VICTORIA GOWRI

¶6

CRP(MD)Nos.1355 and 1356 of 2014

¶7

and

¶8

M.P(MD) No.1 of 2014

Marimuthu

... Petitioner

(in both petitions)

versus

1.Velmurugan (died)

2.Neelavathi

3.Muthulakshmi

4.Porkkodi

5.Sangeetha

6.Karuppa Kameswaram

... Respondents

(in both petitions)

(Respondents 2 to 6 are brought on record as Lrs of the deceased sole respondent vide Court Order dated 07.11.2022 made in C.M.P(MD) Nos.6143 and 6144 of 2019)

¶22

1/6

¶23

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

¶24

CRP(MD)Nos.1355 and 1356 of 2014

¶25

Common Prayer: Civil Revision Petitions filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, to set aside the fair and decreetal orders passed by the learned Principal District Judge, Theni in Tr.O.P.Nos.21 and 22 of 2013 in O.S.Nos.18 and 27 of 2009, dated 03.04.2014.

¶26

For Petitioner : Mr.R.Balakrishnan

¶27

For Respondents : Mr.George Raja for M/s.Ajmal Associates (in both petitions)

¶28

COMMON ORDER

¶29

With the consent of both parties, these civil revision petitions are

¶30

taken up for final hearing today.

¶31

C.RP(MD) No.1355 of 2014 was filed by one Marimuthu, who is

¶32

the plaintiff in O.S.No.18 of 2009 on the file of the learned Principal District Munsif at Theni. It is the suit for declaration that the plaintiff is entitled to run the theatre, namely, Crescent theatre, on rotation basis along with the defendant. O.S.No.27 of 2009 was also filed by the very same revision petitioner/plaintiff seeking mandatory injunction to remove the

¶33

2/6

¶34

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

¶35

CRP(MD)Nos.1355 and 1356 of 2014

¶36

obstruction made by the respondent/defendant in the vacant portion of the theatre before the learned Principal District Judge at Theni. Thereafter, the respondent/defendant, namely, one Velumurgan filed O.S.No.28 of 2013 on the file of Additional District Court cum Sessions Judge at Periyakulam. Simultaneously, the respondent also filed two transfer original petitions bearing TR.O.P.Nos.21 & 22 of 20 to transfer O.S.Nos.18 & 27 of 2009 on the file of the Principal District Munsif Court at Uthamapalayam to the file of Additional District Court cum Sessions Court at Periyakulam and the same was allowed on 03.04.2014. As against the same, the petitioner preferred these two civil revision Petitions before the Court.

¶37

Today, the learned counsel for the petitioner by producing e-court statement of O.S.No.28 of 2013 on the file of learned Additional District Judge and Sessions Judge, Periyakulam, brought to the notice of this Court that the said suit for partition was dismissed for default and a copy of the judgment is also produced before this Court.

¶38

3/6

¶39

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

¶40

CRP(MD)Nos.1355 and 1356 of 2014

¶41

Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent stated that e-court services reflect that the order of stay was pending in O.S.No.28 of 2013 and the same was extended from the date of filing till 08.11.2019 and thereafter, it seems that the case was posted for trial on 22.11.2019, 16.012.2019 and 10.01.2020. Further, the learned counsel for the respondent submitted that even in these two civil revision petitions, there is an order of interim stay and that it could not be possible for the trial Court to dispose of the case in such circumstances.

¶42

Heard the learned counsel on both sides and perused the materials placed on record.

¶43

Taking into consideration of the judgment passed in O.S.No.28 of 2013 on the file of the learned Additional District Judge cum Sessions Judge, Periyakulam, dated 10.01.2020, this Court is of the considered view that the contentions submitted by the petitioner are correct and in view of the dismissal of the partition suit before the learned Additional District Judge cum Sessions Judge, Periyakulam, both the civil revision petitions

¶44

4/6

¶45

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

¶46

CRP(MD)Nos.1355 and 1356 of 2014

¶47

cannot be kept pending any more and the same are liable to be dismissed as infructuous. Accordingly, these Civil Revision Petitions are dismissed as infructuous. However, in case the respondent files any restoration petition before the trial Court, the petitioner is at liberty to file revive the revision petitions before this Court. No costs.

¶48

16.02.2023

¶49

NCC : Yes/ No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No cp

¶50

¶51

1.The Principal District Judge, Theni.

¶52

2.The Section Officer, V.R.Section, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

¶53

5/6

¶54

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

¶55

CRP(MD)Nos.1355 and 1356 of 2014

¶56

L.VICTORIA GOWRI,J.

¶57

¶58

CRP(MD)Nos.1355 and 1356 of 2014

¶59

16.02.2023

¶60

6/6

¶61

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

Marimuthu v. Velmurugan(Died)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Marimuthu v. Velmurugan(Died)

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

Kithir Mohammed(died) Vs Muthu Araba

R.Devendran, S/O. Rathinasamy Vs S.Ravichandran

M. Subramaniam Vs S. Selvarani

Krishnammal, Vs Paluvarnam

Govindan Chettiar(Died), Vs Krishnan, S/O. Govindan

Arokiyasamy, Vs Madhalan Mariyammal