Disposed

R.Ganesan v. R.Rengasamy

Madras HC1 Mar 2024CRP(MD)/62/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this civil revision petition, the Madras High Court dismissed the revision filed by R. Ganesan challenging an order refusing his request to whitewash a wall. The Court disposed of the petition without costs based on an understanding reached between the parties regarding a future site visit, rather than deciding the core legal dispute.

What did the court decide?

Civil revision petition disposed of; no costs awarded; connected miscellaneous petition closed.

R.Ganesan Vs R.Rengasamy — Property and Title | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

C.R.P.(MD)No.62 of 2024

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 01.03.2024

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE G.ILANGOVAN

¶6

C.R.P.(MD)No.62 of 2024 and C.M.P.(MD).No.356 of 2024

¶7

R.Ganesan ... Petitioner/Petitioner/Plaintiff

Vs.

1.R.Rengasamy

2.Pappathy

3.Balasubramani ... Respondents 1 to 3/Respondents/

¶12

Defendants 1 to 3

¶13

PRAYER : Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of

¶14

Constitution of India, to set aside the impugned fair and decreetal order dated 31.10.2023 passed in E.P.No.3 of 2016 in O.S.No.56 of 2010, on the file of the Principal District Munsif Court, Karur.

¶15

For Petitioner : Mr.D.Nallathambi

¶16

For Respondents : Mr.M.P.Senthil for R2 & R3

¶17

1/4

¶18

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

¶19

C.R.P.(MD)No.62 of 2024

¶20

ORDER

¶21

This civil revision petition has been filed set aside the impugned fair and decreetal order dated 31.10.2023 passed in E.P.No.3 of 2016 in O.S.No.56 of 2010, on the file of the Principal District Munsif Court, Karur.

¶22

2.Aggrieved over the order of the dismissal passed by the trial Court, this petition has been filed. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that no finding was recorded by the Enquiry Court over the photographs filed by the petitioner. Now the photographs are produced before the Court. Now it is seen that obstruction was made by the respondent by putting up tin sheet. According to the petitioner, they are unablt to white washing the western wall.

¶23

3.The learned counsel for the respondents 2 and 3 would submit that the petitioner may give notice giving two days time about their visit and the work to be undertaken, So that it will be considered by the respondent and permit the petitioner, to do the work.

¶24

2/4

¶25

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

¶26

C.R.P.(MD)No.62 of 2024

¶27

4.In the light of the above said understanding reached between the

¶28

parties, this civil revision petition stands disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶29

01.03.2024

¶30

Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No TM

¶31

¶32

1.The District Munsif, Karur.

¶33

2.The Section Officer, E.R.Section/V.R.Section, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

¶34

3/4

¶35

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

¶36

C.R.P.(MD)No.62 of 2024

¶37

G.ILANGOVAN ,J.

¶38

¶39

C.R.P.(MD)No.62 of 2024

¶40

01.03.2024

¶41

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

¶42

4/4

R.Ganesan v. R.Rengasamy

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

R.Ganesan v. R.Rengasamy

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

Sivakumar, Vs Arasurathinam

David Dhas Vs The Inspector of Police

Alexpandian, Vs Sangeetha

S.Sundarapandian Vs P.Rajeshwari

Suresh Vs Shinu

V.Nithiya Vs Dhandayuthapani