Disposed

Sivakumar v. the Sub Registrar

Madras HC2 Aug 2023WP(MD)/19159/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madurai Bench held that the ex-parte judgment relied upon the Court below since the respondents sought restoration. The Sub Court was directed to dispose of the restoration application within six weeks and complete the suit within eight months, before the writ petition was disposed of.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the Sub Court to dispose of the interlocutory application within six weeks and complete the suit within eight months.

Sivakumar Vs the Sub Registrar — Property and Title | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

W.P.(MD).No.19159 of 2021

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 02.08.2023

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE S.SRIMATHY

¶6

W.P.(MD).No.19159 of 2021 and W.M.P.(MD).No.15910 of 2021

¶7

P.Sivakumar ... Petitioner

¶8

Vs.

¶9

1.The Sub Registrar, Sub Registrar Office, Sathankulam, Thoothukudi District.

¶10

2.S.Alice Rahini

¶11

3.S.Margaret

¶12

4.S.Raja Selvi Daisy Rani

¶13

5.S.Maliys

¶14

6.S.Johnson ... Respondents

¶15

(R-2 to R-6 are impleaded vide Court Order dated 12.08.2022 in W.M.P.(MD).No.18638 of 2021 in W.P.(MD).No.19159 of 2021)

¶16

1/6

¶17

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

¶18

W.P.(MD).No.19159 of 2021

¶19

Prayer

¶20

Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondent to register and release the document registered as P.25/2009 pending on the file of the respondent office in view of the Judgment and Decree dated 06.09.2021 made in O.S.No.20 of 2021 within the period that may be stipulated by this Court.

¶21

For Petitioner : Mr.M.Ajmal Khan, Senior Counsel, For M/s.Ajmal Associates For R-1 : Mr.B.Saravanan, Additional Government Pleader. For R-2 : Mr.A.Ajith Geethan For R-3 : Mr.B.N.Raja Mohamed

¶22

ORDER

¶23

This Writ Petition is filed for Mandamus, directing the first respondent to register and release the document registered as P.25/2009 pending on the file of the respondent office in view of the Judgment and Decree dated 06.09.2021 made in O.S.No.20 of 2021.

¶24

2/6

¶25

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

¶26

W.P.(MD).No.19159 of 2021

¶27

The 1^st respondent has declined to register the document by citing the Judgment and Decree dated 06.09.2021 passed in O.S.No.20 of 2021.

¶28

Based on the Judgment and Decree the petitioner has filed this Writ Petition for Mandamus to register the document. It is seen that the said Judgment and Decree is an exparte Judgment and Decree. Pending Writ Petition, the respondents have filed Interlocutory Application in I.A.No.1 of 2022 to set aside the exparte Judgment and restore the suit and the same is pending on the file of Sub Court, Thiruchendur.

¶29

Therefore, the Sub Court, Thiruchendur is directed to dispose of the aforesaid Interlocutory Application within a period of six (6) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. In case of restoration of suit, the suit shall be completed within a period of eight (8) months therefrom.

¶30

With the above direction, this Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall

¶31

be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶32

3/6

¶33

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

¶34

W.P.(MD).No.19159 of 2021

¶35

02.08.2023

¶36

NCC : Yes/No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes/ No Nsr

¶37

¶38

The Sub Registrar, Sub Registrar Office, Sathankulam, Thoothukudi District.

¶39

Copy To

¶40

The Sub-ordinate Judge, Thiruchendur.

¶41

4/6

¶42

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

¶43

W.P.(MD).No.19159 of 2021

¶44

S.SRIMATHY, J.

¶45

Nsr

¶46

W.P.(MD).No.19159 of 2021

¶47

02.08.2023

¶48

5/6

¶49

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

¶50

W.P.(MD).No.19159 of 2021

¶51

6/6

¶52

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

Sivakumar v. the Sub Registrar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sivakumar v. the Sub Registrar

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

Kannaya Naidu.B Vs The District Collector

Hariharan.P Vs the District Collector

Musthafa Vs The Commissioner of Customs

Srinivasan.N Vs the Dist.Collector

Arulmigu Mandhiramoorthy Vinayagar Temple Vs The Joint Commissioner

Chellappan.Rm Vs The Madurai Corporation