Dismissed

V.Yuvaraj v. Kuppaiah @ Kuppusami (Died) 1. Natarajan

Madras HC16 Apr 2024REV.APPL/81/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Justice V. Lakshminarayanan dismissed a review application filed under CPC Order 47 Rule 1. He found that apart from a minor clarification regarding the status of a pending writ appeal, there were no merits to review the previously made order in CRP No.208 of 2018 regarding a stay on suit No.70 of 2011.

What did the court decide?

Review application dismissed. No costs.

V.Yuvaraj Vs Kuppaiah @ Kuppusami (Died) 1… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

Rev.Appl.No.81 of 2024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 16.04.2024

¶4

Coram

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V. LAKSHMINARAYANAN

¶6

Rev.Appl.No.81 of 2024

¶7

1.V.Yuvaraj C.Periasami (Died)

¶8

2.P.Selvi

¶9

3.Sumathy

¶10

4.P.Vijayalakshmi

¶11

5.G.Manjula

¶12

6.P.Sudha

¶13

7.K.P.Makesh Keerthi

¶14

... Petitioners

¶15

-Versus-

¶16

Kuppaiha @ Kuppusamy(Died) 1.Natarajan

¶17

2.K.Raja

¶18

3.Anandan

¶19

4.Deepa

¶20

K.Seenivasan (Died)

¶21

5.Sumathi

¶22

6.Shanthi

¶23

7.Sivashankar

¶24

8.Nandhini

¶25

9.S.Sindubairavi

¶26

10.Manikandan

¶27

11.Sowmya

¶28

12.Minor Sandhya ... Respondents

¶29

Review Application filed under section 114 read with Order 47 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure to review the order dated 11.07.2023 made in

¶30

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

¶31

1 of 4

¶32

Rev.Appl.No.81 of 2024

¶33

CRP.No.208 of 2018.

¶34

For Petitioners : Mr.R.Devaraj For Respondents : Mr.Bharathkumar

¶35

ORDER

¶36

This review application seeks to review the order passed by me in CRP.No.208 of 2018.

¶37

The petition had been filed seeking stay of O.S.No.70 of 2011 pending

¶38

on the file of the Additional District Judge at Hosur under Section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The ground for stay is that a writ appeal had been preferred challenging the quash of the acquisition proceedings and therefore, the present review has been moved.

¶39

W.P.No.16881 of 1994 had been filed to quash the land acquisition

¶40

proceedings and had been allowed. Challenging the same, a writ appeal had been filed by the Housing Board, but I recorded in the order that the writ appeal had been preferred by the alleged vendor. Therefore, the order in paragraph 5 would read as, “seeking stay of suit allegedly on the basis that a writ appeal

¶41

2 of 4

¶42

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

¶43

Rev.Appl.No.81 of 2024

¶44

filed by the Housing Board is still pending consideration”.

¶45

Apart from the said clarification, I do not find any merits in the review. Accordingly, this review application is dismissed. No costs.

¶46

16.04.2024

¶47

nl Index : yes / no Neutral Citation : yes / no Speaking / Non Speaking Order

¶48

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 3 of 4

¶49

Rev.Appl.No.81 of 2024

¶50

¶51

V.LAKSHMINARAYANAN, J.

¶52

Rev.Appl.No.81 of 2024

¶53

16.04.2024

¶54

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 4 of 4

V.Yuvaraj v. Kuppaiah @ Kuppusami (Died) 1. Natarajan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

V.Yuvaraj v. Kuppaiah @ Kuppusami (Died) 1. Natarajan

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

K.Balu Vs Jeyashree

V. Kowsalya Vs K.Lokesh

T.Sangeetha Vs S.Senthilkumar

Sheeba Vs Kores

R.Priscilla @ Indhu Vs v.David @Indrajith

R.Priscilla @ Indhu Vs v.David @ Indirajith