Dismissed

Muthuvenkatachalapathi v. Ramiah @ Ramakrishnan Ambalam

Madras HC6 Jul 2023CRP(MD)/728/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In the absence of appearance and lack of interest shown by the petitioner, a civil revision petition filed under Article 227 against an order of the District Munsif Court was dismissed for default, and connected petitions were closed.

What did the court decide?

The civil revision petition stands dismissed for default. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

Muthuvenkatachalapathi Vs Ramiah @… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

C.R.P(MD)No.728 of 2017

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 06.07.2023

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN

¶6

C.R.P(MD)No.728 of 2017 and C.M.P(MD)Nos.3330 of 2017 and 2689 of 2018

¶7

1.Muthuvenkatachalapathi

¶8

Muthu Kumarasamy (Died)

¶9

2.Jeyasri

¶10

3.Minor Logesh Pandi

¶11

4.Minor Ramkumar ...Petitioners/ Proposed Parties

¶12

Vs.

¶13

Ramiah @ Ramakrishnan Ambalam (Died)

¶14

1.R.M.Subramanian

¶15

2.R.M.Muthu Palaniappan

¶16

3.R.M.Muthuramalingam

¶17

4.Ambika

¶18

...Respondents/ Respondents 2 to 5/ Defendants 2 to 5

¶19

Sakkubai (Died)

¶20

Meenal (Died)

¶21

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

¶22

1/4

¶23

C.R.P(MD)No.728 of 2017

¶24

PRAYER: Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, setting aside the fair and executable order dated 11.08.2016 passed in I.A.No.641 of 2015 in O.S.No.328 of 2011 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Melur.

¶25

For Petitioner : No Appearance For R1 : Mr.P.Santhana Krishnan

¶26

COMMON ORDER

¶27

This civil revision petition has been filed against the order passed by the District Munsif Court, Melur in I.A.No.641 of 2015 in O.S.No. 328 of 2011 dated 11.08.2016.

¶28

On perusal of the order sheet, it is seen that on 15.02.2022, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner reported no instructions. It has also come to the light of this Court that the first respondent has died and steps have also been taken to implead the legal heirs of the first respondent. Since the learned counsel for the petitioner reported no instructions, notice was ordered on the petitioner and again on 29.03.2022, fresh notice was ordered to the petitioner.

¶29

Further, vide order dated, 15.06.2023, it was recorded that the https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis notice sent to the petitioner was returned with an endorsement

¶30

2/4

¶31

C.R.P(MD)No.728 of 2017

¶32

"unclaimed". Hence, Registry was directed to print the name of the petitioner in the cause list. As directed, the name of the petitioner was printed in the cause list. There is no representation on behalf of the petitioner today and in previous hearing also.

¶33

Since there is no interest shown by the petitioner and there is no

¶34

appearance on behalf of the petitioner, no purpose would be served in retaining the civil revision petition.

¶35

In the result, the civil revision petition stands dismissed for default. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. No costs.

¶36

06.07.2023 NCC : Yes / No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No sn

¶37

¶38

1.The District Munsif Court, Melur.

¶39

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

¶40

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

¶41

3/4

¶42

C.R.P(MD)No.728 of 2017

¶43

C.KUMARAPPAN,J.

¶44

¶45

C.R.P(MD)No.728 of 2017

¶46

06.07.2023

¶47

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

¶48

4/4

Muthuvenkatachalapathi v. Ramiah @ Ramakrishnan Ambalam

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Muthuvenkatachalapathi v. Ramiah @ Ramakrishnan Ambalam

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

Poomayil Vs Rakkan

Marikannu Vs S.Muthusamy

N.Thayasowmi Vs S.Ariramakrishnan

Sheik Abdul Kader Vs Ahammed Farida Ammal

Vathsala Vs the Executive Engineer

A/M Sri Vembadi Sudalaimadasam Vs Government of Tamilnadu