Allowed

Selvi @ Kannammal, v. Samikkkannu

Madras HC7 Nov 2023CRP(MD)/1698/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this civil revision petition under Article 227, the Madras High Court allowed the petitioner/defendant who was prevented from adducing evidence due to ill health. The court quashed the order closing evidence and directed the trial court to complete the trial within six weeks.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order in I.A.No.1 of 2023 in O.S.No.210 of 2022 was set aside; the trial court is directed to complete the trial within six weeks.

Selvi @ Kannammal, Vs Samikkkannu — Specific Performance | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

C.R.P.(MD)No.1698 of 2023

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 07.11.2023

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K.MURALI SHANKAR

¶6

Selvi @ Kannammal : Petitioner/Petitioner/ Defendant

¶7

Vs.

¶8

Samikkanni : Respondent/Respondent/ Plaintiff

¶9

Prayer : This Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, to set aside the order made in I.A.No.1 of 2023 in O.S.No.210 of 2022 on the file of the learned Sub Judge, Keeranoor, Pudukkottai District.

¶10

For Respondent : Mr.K.P.Narayanakumar

¶11

ORDER

¶12

The Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order passed in I.A.No.1 of 2023 in O.S.No.210 of 2022 on the file of the learned Sub

¶13

1/4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶14

C.R.P.(MD)No.1698 of 2023

¶15

Judge, Keeranoor, Pudukkottai District, dismissing the petition to reopen the case.

¶16

The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the respondent has filed the above suit for specific performance; that when the case was posted for defendant side evidence, since the defendant has

¶17

suffered ill health, he could not proceed with the case and that the defendant side evidence was closed.

¶18

The learned counsel for the respondent would submit that the petitioner has remained ex-parte and despite sufficient opportunities, he has not utilized the same for adducing his side evidence and that is why, the evidence was closed and the case was posted for arguments.

¶19

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and also the fact that the defendant has not adduced any evidence to prove their defence, this Court is of the view that the defendant should be given one more opportunity to take part in the proceedings and to defend the suit. Hence, the impugned order in I.A.No.1 of 2023 in O.S.No.210 of 2022, on

¶20

2/4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶21

C.R.P.(MD)No.1698 of 2023

¶22

the file of the learned Sub Judge, Keeranoor, Pudukkottai District, is set aside and the trial Court is directed to complete the trial within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. The petitioner/defendant is directed to cooperate with the trial Court for completing the trial as directed by this Court.

¶23

5.With the above observation and direction, this Civil Revision

¶24

Petition is disposed of. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. No costs.

¶25

07.11.2023

¶26

NCC :yes/No Index :yes/No Internet:yes/No das

¶27

¶28

1.The Sub Judge, Keeranoor, Pudukkottai District.

¶29

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

¶30

3/4

¶31

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

¶32

C.R.P.(MD)No.1698 of 2023

¶33

K.MURALI SHANKAR,J.

¶34

das

¶35

Order made in C.R.P.(MD)No.1698 of 2023 and C.M.P.(MD)No.8459 of 2023

¶36

Dated : 07.11.2023

¶37

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

Selvi @ Kannammal, v. Samikkkannu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Selvi @ Kannammal, v. Samikkkannu

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

A.Arunkumar Vs P.Ilavarasi Hemalatha

M.Somasundaram Vs R.Valliammal

Sivasubramanian Vs Alagurajan

K.S. Vasan, Vs Arul Jothi

Nagarajan Vs N. Umajothi

Sumathi Vs C.Velusamy