The Court set aside orders confirming attachment of property for alleged violation of an injunction order, relying on an Advocate Commissioner's report which found no such violation. The suit was directed to be concluded within one year.
Orders in C.M.A.No.2 of 2020 and I.A.No.113 of 2017 set aside; suit directed to be concluded within one year.
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.R.P.(MD).No.668 of 2021
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 12.12.2024
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.SENTHILKUMAR
C.R.P.(MD)No.668 of 2021
1.J.Hemanth, 2.J.Jaswanth, 3.C.Jeyapaul. ... Petitioners
vs
K.Ganeshkumar ... Respondent
PRAYER: Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, to call for the records and set aside the fair and executable order dated 19.02.2021 made in C.M.A.NO.2 of 2020 on the file of the Sub Court, Periyakulam confirming the fair and decreetal order passed in I.A.No.113 of 2017 dated 30.08.2018 in O.S.No.88 of 2014 on the file of the District Munsif, Periyakulam.
For Petitioners : Mr.A.K.Manickam
For Respondent : No appearance
1/7
C.R.P.(MD).No.668 of 2021
O R D E R
This Revision Petition has been filed to call for the records and set aside the fair and executable order dated 19.02.2021 made in C.M.A.NO.2 of 2020 on the file of the Sub Court, Periyakulam confirming the fair and decreetal order passed in I.A.No.113 of 2017 dated 30.08.2018 in O.S.No.88 of 2014 on the file of the District Munsif, Periyakulam.
2/7
C.R.P.(MD).No.668 of 2021
3/7
C.R.P.(MD).No.668 of 2021
petitioner challenging I.A.No.113 of 2017, wherein an attachment was ordered by the Trial Court, filed C.M.A.No.2 of 2020 on the file of the Sub Court, Periyakulam. The Appellate Court, without examining or ascertaining the contention raised by the revision petitioner, had reproduced the order passed by the Trial Court in I.A.No.113 of 2017. Aggrieved by the same, the present revision petition.
of the summons, there is no appearance either in person or through pleader.
4/7
C.R.P.(MD).No.668 of 2021
However, when there is a categorical finding, based on the Advocate Commissioner’s report that the revision petitioner/defendant has not disobeyed injunction order granted in I.A.No.268 of 2014 dated 09.06.2015, it is absolutely without any material.
11. This Civil Revision Petition is allowed with above direction. No
costs.
12.12.2024
NCC : Yes/No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No apd
5/7
C.R.P.(MD).No.668 of 2021
To
6/7
C.R.P.(MD).No.668 of 2021
N.SENTHILKUMAR,J.
apd
C.R.P(MD)No.668 of 2021
12.12.2024
7/7
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the revision petitioner violated the injunction order passed in I.A.No.268 of 2014?
1 provisions across 1 enactments
J.Hemanth
J.Jaswanth
C.Jeyapaul
K.Ganeshkumar
N.Senthilkumar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
