Dismissed

Ganapathi(Died) v. Arumugam (Died) (1) Raman

Madras HC29 Nov 2024CRP(MD)/2166/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court dismissed a Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution. The court held that the petitioners deliberately furnished a wrong USR number and failed to prosecute the suit after admission, indicating lack of interest. Consequently, the petition was dismissed.

What did the court decide?

Civil Revision Petition dismissed; no costs; connected miscellaneous petition closed.

Ganapathi(Died) Vs Arumugam (Died) (1) Raman — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶2

DATED: 29.11.2024

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.SENTHILKUMAR

¶5

C.R.P.(MD)(PD)No.2166 of 2019 and C.M.P.(MD)No.11365 of 2019

¶6

1.Ganapathi (Died) 2.Subbaiah 3.Magamasi 4.Malliga 5.Muthukumar

6.Muthulakshmi

... Petitioners

-vs.-

Arumugam (Died) 1.Raman 2.Rajammal 3.Shanmugadoss 4.Veerasingh 5.Dhanalakshmi 6.Arasuraj 7.Ilavarasi

¶11

...Respondents

¶12

PRAYER : Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India to set aside the fair and decreetal order dated 14.10.2019 made in I.A.No. 2 of 2019 in A.S.No.67 of 2014 on the file of the Subordinate Court, Valliyoor.

¶13

Page 1 of 4

¶14

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

¶15

For Petitioners :Mr.J.C.Rathnavel Pandian For R1 to R6 :No Appearance *****

¶16

ORDER

¶17

The learned Counsel for the petitioners made a submission before this

¶18

Court that a wrong submission was made before this Court with regard to USR

¶19

number pursuant to the earlier order, dated 31.07.2024.

¶20

2.The learned Counsel for the petitioners has deliberately furnished a wrong USR number, ie., USR No.16787 of 2024 with regard to the payment of batta and he now submitted that batta has not been paid. The attitude of the learned Counsel for the petitioners in making wrong submission before this Court would not only show the non compliance of the earlier order of this Court, but also making a deliberate and wilful statement of falsehood

¶21

3.As the appeal suit is of the year 2017, after the admission, the Revision Petitioner has not taken any steps to serve notice on the respondents. This would only show that the Revision Petitioner is not interested in prosecuting

¶22

________________ Page 2 of 4_

¶23

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

¶24

the Revision Petition and for the above reasons, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶25

29.11.2024

¶26

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

¶27

¶28

The Subordinate Judge, Valliyoor.

¶29

Page 3 of 4

¶30

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

¶31

N.SENTHILKUMAR, J.

¶32

cmr

¶33

C.R.P.(MD)(PD)No.2166 of 2019

¶34

29.11.2024

¶35

________________ Page 4 of 4_

¶36

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

Ganapathi(Died) v. Arumugam (Died) (1) Raman

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ganapathi(Died) v. Arumugam (Died) (1) Raman

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

S.Rajammal Vs S.Syamali

N.Parasmal Vs C.Thiruppathi

R.Lalithadevi, Vs M.Vivek

Pushpam Vs Selvam

Kandasamy Vs Xavier

Raju @ Esakki Raja Vs Marilakshmi