Dismissed

U.Kannaiah v. v.Rajeshwari

Madras HC9 Feb 2024CRP(MD)/1705/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madurai Bench of Madras High Court dismissed a Civil Revision Petition regarding a second hearing order. The Court held that additional documents cannot be received without applying for leave under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC, which was not done. Consequently, the trial court's order was not perverse. The petition was dismissed as devoid of merits.

What did the court decide?

The Civil Revision Petition stands dismissed.

U.Kannaiah Vs v.Rajeshwari — Property and Title | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶2

DATED : 09.02.2024

¶3

CORAM:

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN

¶5

C.R.P(MD)No.1705 of 2011 and M.P(MD)No.1 of 2011

¶6

U.Kannaiah ... Revision Petitioner/Petitioner/Plaintiff

¶7

.Vs.

¶8

1.V.Rajeshwari

¶9

2.U.Selvaperumal

¶10

3.G.Subramaniya Thevar

¶11

4.U.Achiammal

¶12

5.U.Muthulakshmi

¶13

6.Mahesh

¶14

7.Premier Finance(P)Limited, representedby its Director Mr.A.Sankar Plot No.425,

¶15

SIDCO Industrial Estate,

¶16

Ambattur,

¶17

Chennai – 600 098.

¶18

1/5

¶19

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

¶20

8.L.G.Balakrishnan and Brothers Limited, C.Subramanian(Supervisor), Son of Ganapathy Thevar, Kumarapuram Road, Kannappanalloor, Aral Kumarapuram, Aralvoimozhy Vilalge, Thovalai Taluk, Kanyakumari District. ... Respondents/Respondents/Defendants

¶21

PRAYER: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitition of India praying this Court to set aside the order passed by the learned II additional District Munsif, Nagercoil in I.A.No.301 of 2010 in O.S.No.655 of 2008, dated 09.03.2011.

¶22

For Petitioner : Mr.D.Selvanayagam

¶23

For Responents : No appearance

¶24

ORDER

¶25

The instant Civil Revision Petition has been filed against the dismissal order passed by the Court below on 9.3.2011in an application filed to implead the respondents 6 to 8 as defendants 6 to 8.

¶26

2.According to the Petitioner, some of the family properties have been

¶27

sold to the respodnents 6 to 8 and that while preparing the plaint, they are not in a

¶28

2/5

¶29

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

¶30

position to ascertain the details as to what are all the properties sold and the particulars of the respondents 6 to 8. However, the trial Court is of the view that there are no materials to substantiate the contention putforth in the affidavit and ultimately dismissed the application.

¶31

3.The learned counsel for the Petitioner would submit that the dismissal of the application is based upon the non-production of the supporting documents. The learned counsel would further submit that they would file such documents before this Court along with typed- set of index.

¶32

4.It is pertinent to make a mention here that additional document shall

¶33

not be received without the leave of the Court and by filing application under Order 41 Rule 27 of Civil Procedure Code.Here admittedly, no application is filed seeking leave of this Court to receive the alleged document and furthermore, the affidavit of the Petitioner did not disclose as to how the sale in favour of the respondents 6 to 8 has impinched upon the rights of the parties. Therefore this Court could not find any perversity in the order passed by the trial Court and that the Petitioner has not made out any ground to deviate from the findings rendered

¶34

3/5

¶35

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

¶36

by the trial Court and as such, the Civil Revision Petition is devoid of merits.

¶37

5.Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition stands dismissed. There is no

¶38

order as to costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.

¶39

09.02.2024

¶40

NCS : Yes/No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No

¶41

vsn

¶42

¶43

1.The II Additional District Munsif, Nagercoil.

¶44

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

¶45

4/5

¶46

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

¶47

C.KUMARAPPAN,J.

¶48

vsn

¶49

ORDER MADE IN C.R.P(MD)No.1705 of 2011 and M.P(MD)No.1 of 2011

¶50

09.02.2024

¶51

5/5

¶52

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

U.Kannaiah v. v.Rajeshwari

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

U.Kannaiah v. v.Rajeshwari

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

G.Meenachi Sundaram Vs R.N.Nagammal

The Joint Commissioner, Vs Varadan Asari

Abdul Salam, Vs K.Mohideen Masthan @ Thangappa

Kamalam Vs Sivakumar

Abdul Azeez Vs Ramasamy S/O.Arumugam

Alagappan Vs Muthuraman