The petitioner filed petitions to condone a 70-day delay in filing review applications. Despite multiple listings, the counsel did not appear on the final hearing date. The court dismissed the petitions for non-prosecution and rejected the review applications at the summary record stage.
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.
C.M.P. (MD)Nos.13490 and 13492 of 2023
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 16.08.2024
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.SATHISH KUMAR
C.M.P.(MD)Nos.13490 and 13492 of 2023 and REV.APLC.(MD) No.SR 64956 and 72098 of 2023
Kamal Nazar
...Petitioner in both petitions
Vs.
K.A.S.Ramdas (died)
1.Rajeswari Ramdas 2.K.A.S.R.Sivakumar 3.K.A.S.R.Saravanan 4.K.A.S.R.Prabhu 5.K.A.S.R.Arun Kumar
Adbul Razack (died) 6.Shahul Hameed 7.Samsunisha 8.Natharsha 9.Tajudeen 10.Mohamed Ibrahim
...Respondents in both petitions
PRAYER in C.M.P.(MD)Nos.13490 and 13492 of 2023: These Civil Miscellaneous Petitions are filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, to condone the delay of 70 days in filing the review petitions made in A.S.(MD)Nos. 64 and 65 of 2022, dated 06.06.2023.
1/4
C.M.P. (MD)Nos.13490 and 13492 of 2023
PRAYER in REV.APLC.(MD)Nos.SR 64956 & 72098 of 2023: These review petitions are filed under Order 47 Rule 1 r/w Section 114 of Civil Procedure Code, to review the judgment and decree dated 06.06.2023 in A.S.(MD)Nos.64 and 65 of 2022 on the file of this Court.
In both petitions:
For Petitioner : No Appearance For R1 to R5 : Mr.Niresh Kumar For R6 to R10 : No Appearance
COMMON ORDER
These applications have been filed to condone the delay of 70 days in
filing the Review Applications.
2.When these matters were listed for hearing on 05.04.2024, there was no representation on behalf of the petitioner. Hence, these matters were directed to be listed on 10.06.2024. Thereafter, on 04.07.2024, at the request of the learned counsel for the petitioner, these matters were directed to be listed on 14.08.2024.
3.Even today, when the matters are taken up for hearing, the learned counsel on record has not appeared and the learned counsel representing the learned counsel on record seeks an adjournment.
2/4
C.M.P. (MD)Nos.13490 and 13492 of 2023
4.Therefore, these Civil Miscellaneous Petitions are dismissed for non-
prosecution. Consequently, the Review Applications are also rejected at the SR stage itself.
5.At this juncture, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that in the execution proceedings that was undertaken in pursuant to the judgment and decree made in the appeal suits, the property has been delivered to the decree holder. The said submission is recorded. No costs.
16.08.2024
Index : Yes/No Internet : Yes/No ta
To
1.Kamal Nazaar, S/o.late Abdul Razack, No.91, 1st Floor, R.M.S.Colony, 5th Street South, Edamalipatty Pudur, Trichy.
2.The Section Officer, Vernacular Records, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
3/4
C.M.P. (MD)Nos.13490 and 13492 of 2023
N.SATHISH KUMAR, J.
ta
C.M.P.(MD)Nos.13490 and 13492 of 2023 and REV.APLC.(MD) No.SR 64956 and 72098 of 2023
16.08.2024
4/4
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the condonation of delay for filing review applications is required when the petitioner did not appear in person or through counsel?
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Kamal Nazar
K.A.S.Ramdas (died)
Rajeswari Ramdas
K.A.S.R.Sivakumar
K.A.S.R.Saravanan
K.A.S.R.Prabhu
N.Sathish Kumar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
