In this review application under CPC regarding a decision dated 22.01.2021, the High Court dismissed the petition partly because applicants 3 and 4 failed to appear and were deemed not interested. No costs were awarded.
No costs.
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.
Rev.Aplc.(MD) No.58 of 2022
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 04..07..2024
Coram
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N.SATHISH KUMAR
REVIEW APPLICATION (MD) No.58 of 2022 in C.M.P.(MD) No.4105 of 2018 in S.A.No.404 of 1997
1.Dasan (Died) 2.Kunju (Died) 3.K.B.Pushparaj 4.P.C.Jain
..... Applicants
-Versus-
11.M.Lazer
12.N.Gregori
1 of 5
Rev.Aplc.(MD) No.58 of 2022
13.M.Sathyaraj
[Minor Rep. By Mother N.Gregori,12th respondent] 14.Sundari (Died) 15.K.Antoni 16.K.Sali Aruliah 17.Saral (Died) 18.A.Abraham (Died) 19.P.Yovan 20.George Nessaya 21.Mary Ramani 22.John Devakumar (Died) 23.John Jayakumar 24.John Vedaraj (Died) 25.A.Anbaiya 26.M.S.Arulayya 27.M.I.Kesari 28.Chelliachi 29.S.Davidson 30.S.Jayasingh Bright 31.Lilly 32.Royappan 33.Maria Mayel 34.Gabriel (Died) 35.Varghese 36.Jessi 37.Stanley 38.Robinson
2 of 5
Rev.Aplc.(MD) No.58 of 2022
39.Edison
..... Respondents
Review Application filed under Order XLVII, Rule 1 read with Section 114 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 praying to review the order of this court dated 22.01.2021 made in C.M.P.(MD) No.4105 of 2018.
| For Applicant(s) | : Mr.Punitha Devakumar (No Appearance for Applicants 3 and 4) Applicants 1 and 2 Died |
|---|---|
| For Respondent (s) | : No appearance for RR 6, 8, 11, 16, 19, 21, 23, 26, 27, 29, 31, 32, 33 and 35 |
| No appearance for R13 (minor) rep. by R12 |
|
| RR7 & 9 Notice returned as addressees not known |
|
| RR30 – Notice refused | |
| RR20, 36 to 39 Notice returned as Addressees left |
|
| RR1 to 5, 10, 14, 17, 18, 22, 24 and 34 Died |
ORDER
When this review application is taken up today for hearing, there is no
representation for the review applicants 3 & 4. On 05.04.2024 also when the matter came up for hearing, there was no representation on behalf of the applicants 3 & 4. Thus, it appears that the applicants 3 and 4 are not interested in prosecuting the matter further. Hence, this review application is dismissed
3 of 5
Rev.Aplc.(MD) No.58 of 2022
for non prosecution. No costs.
Index : yes / no Neutral Citation : yes / no Speaking / Non Speaking Order kmk
04..07..2024
Rev.Aplc.(MD) No.58 of 2022
N.SATHISH KUMAR.J.,
kmk
REVIEW APPLICATION (MD) No.58 of 2022 in C.M.P.(MD) No.4105 of 2018 in S.A.No.404 of 1997
04..07..2024
1 issue framed by the court
Whether a review application should be proceeded with when applicants do not appear and are shown as not interested in prosecution.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
1.Dasan (Died)
2.Kunju (Died)
3.K.B.Pushparaj
4.P.C.Jain
1. Kurusumuthu Nadar (Died)
6. J.Jeevaraj
N.SATHISH KUMAR
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
