Dismissed

K. Murugan v. R. Muthu Priyadharshini

Madras HC7 Nov 2023CRP(MD)/929/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madras High Court bench, held that since the original High Officer's Petition was already disposed of by a decretal order dated 17.04.2021, there was no surviving issue for the Court of Additional Subordinate Judge to adjudicate, rendering the impugned order infructuous. Against this background, the petition dismissed as infructuous. Connected petition closed. No costs. The Court did not apply

What did the court decide?

Civil Revision Petition dismissed as infructuous. No costs. Connected Civil Miscellaneous Petition closed.

K. Murugan Vs R. Muthu Priyadharshini — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

C.R.P(MD)No.929 of 2018

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 07.11.2023

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BATTU DEVANAND

¶6

C.R.P(MD) No.929 of 2018 and C.M.P. (MD) No.4081 of 2018

¶7

K.Murugan ...Petitioner

¶8

Vs.

¶9

R.Muthu Priyadharshini ...Respondent

¶10

PRAYER: Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, to call for the records pertaining to the impugned order and Decreetal Order in I.A.No.2 of 2017 in H.M.O.P. No. 25 of 2016 dated 06.10.2017 on the file of the Court of the Additional Sub-ordinate Judge, Tirunelveli, Tirunelveli District and set aside the same.

¶11

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

¶12

1/5

¶13

C.R.P(MD)No.929 of 2018

¶14

For Petitioner : Mr. P.Muthuvel For Respondent : Mr. S.Velrajan

¶15

O R D E R

¶16

This Civil Revision Petition is filed against the order

¶17

dated 06.10.2017 passed in I.A.No.2 of 2017 in H.M.O.P. No.25 of 2016 on the file of the Additional Subordinate Court, Tirunelveli, Tirunelveli District.

¶18

During the course of hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that H.M.O.P. No.25 of 2016 itself was disposed of by a decreetal order and fair order, dated 17.04.2021 on the file of the Additional Subordinate Court, Tirunelveli, Tirunelveli District and hence, nothing survives for further adjudication in this Civil Revision Petition.

¶19

The learned counsel for the respondent also endorsed

¶20

the same.

¶21

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

¶22

2/5

¶23

C.R.P(MD)No.929 of 2018

¶24

In view of the factual position that H.M.O.P. No.25 of

¶25

2016 itself is already disposed of, in the considered opinion of this Court, nothing survives for further adjudication in this Civil Revision Petition.

¶26

Accordingly, this Civil Revision Petition is dismissed

¶27

as infructuous.

¶28

No costs.

¶29

Consequently, connected Civil Miscellaneous Petition

¶30

is closed.

¶31

07.11.2023 NCC : Yes / No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No RM

¶32

3/5

¶33

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

¶34

C.R.P(MD)No.929 of 2018

¶35

¶36

The Additional Subordinate Judge, Additional Subordinate Court,

¶37

Tirunelveli, Tirunelveli District.

¶38

4/5

¶39

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

¶40

C.R.P(MD)No.929 of 2018

¶41

BATTU DEVANAND, J.

¶42

¶43

C.R.P(MD) No.929 of 2018

¶44

07.11.2023

¶45

5/5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

K. Murugan v. R. Muthu Priyadharshini

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K. Murugan v. R. Muthu Priyadharshini

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

M.Isath Fathima Vs Arun Kumar

Subbaram Vs P.V. Kalyanasundaram

M.Kalpana Vs the Secretary

R.Mani Vs C.Palanivel

Sujakumari Vs Ratnaswamy

Mahalingam Vs v.Vinoth Alias Anjey Vinoth