Arulmigu Adipureeswara Swamy v. the Presiding Officer
Case brief
What is this about?
of 2013 WP No.15145 of 2013 S.M.SUBRAMANIAM…
A compact analysis
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
WP No.15145 of 2013
WP No.15145 of 2013
S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.
The respective learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties to the lis on hand brought to the notice of this Court that a revision under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure lies against the order impugned in the present writ petition on the order was passed by the Revenue Court, Karaikkal.
- Therefore, the petitioner ought to have filed revision under
Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure in lieu of Section 10 of the Puducherry Cultivating Tenants Protection Act, 1970 (No.9 of 1971). However, the petitioner has erroneously filed the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The present writ petition is pending for the past about ten years. Thus the rejection of the same would cause serious prejudice to the interest of the petitioner and filing revision petition at this length of time will take further time to complete the process.
Page 1 of 2
WP No.15145 of 2013
S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.
Coram
S.M.SUBRAMANIAM
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court