Disposed¶18

J.Nagoor Kani v. Virudhunagar Municpality

Madras HC20 Jan 2025CMP(MD)/10178/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Extension of time to vacate premises; Virudhunagar Municipality; Section 148 r/w 151 C.P.C.; Section 100 C.P.C.; second appeal; SA(MD)No.1780 of 2001; CMP(MD) No.10178 of 2023; order dated 12.04.2023; infructuous closure; no costs; Madurai Bench of Madras High Court; Justice V. Sivagnanam; A.S.No.58 of 1999; O.S.No.283 of 1996; Subordinate Judge Virudhunagar; District Munsif Virudhunagar.

What did the court decide?

None; the Civil Miscellaneous Petition was closed as infructuous with no costs. ¶18

J.Nagoor Kani Vs Virudhunagar Municpality — Madras HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶2

Civil Appellate Jurisdiction

¶3

Monday, the Twentieth day of January Two Thousand and Twenty Five

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

The HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V. SIVAGNANAM

¶6

CMP(MD). No.10178 of 2023 in SA 1780 OF 2001

¶7

J.Nagoor Kani S/o.Mohitheen 57 Pullakottai Road Virudhunagar ... Petitioner/Petitioner

¶8

¶9

1 Virudhunagar Municpality Through its Commissioner Virudhunagar ... Respondent/Respondent

¶10

Prayer in CMP(MD) No.10178 of 2023 :-

¶11

This Civil Miscellaneous Petition is filed Under Section 148 r/w 151 C.P.C., to extend the time of 12 months for vacating the premises as per order dated 12.04.2023 made in SA(MD)No.1780 of 2001 on the file of this Hon`ble Court. Prayer in SA 1780 of 2001:

¶12

This Second Appeal is filed Section 100 of C.P.C., to set aside the decree and judgment dated 20.06.2001 rendered in A.S.No.58 of 1999 on the file of Subordinate Judge, Virudhunagar, reversing the decree and judgment dated 23.06.1999 rendered

¶13

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

¶14

1/3

¶15

in O.S.No.283 of 1996 on the file of District Munsif of Virudhunagar, by allowing Second Appeal.

¶16

ORDER:- This Civil Miscellaneous Petition coming on for orders on this day and upon perusing the petition and the affidavit filed in support thereof and upon hearing the arguments of M/s.H.Mohamed Imran For M/s.Ajmal Assocites, Advocate for the Petitioner and of none appeared for the respondent, this Court made the following order:

¶17

When the matter was taken up for hearing, the learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent Municipality itself granted three years time.

¶18

2.Recording the same, this Civil Miscellaneous Petition is closed as infructuous. No costs.

¶19

Sd/-

¶20

Assistant Registrar(CS II)

¶21

// True Copy //

¶22

/02/2025 Sub Assistant Registrar (CS – I/ II / III /IV)

¶23

¶24

The Subordinate Judge, Virudhunagar.

¶25

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

¶26

2/3

¶27

The District Munsif, Virudhunagar'

¶28

The Commissioner,. Virudhunagar Municpality Virudhunagar

¶29

Copy to:

¶30

The Section Officer, Judicial Section, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai

¶31

ORDER DATED : 20/01/2025 ========================== ORDER ========================== CMP(MD). No.10178 of 2023 IN SA NO.1780 OF 2001 Giving direction and etc. as stated within.

¶32

MK/03.02.2025 3P/5C

¶33

Madurai Bench of Madras High Court is issuing certified copies in this format from 17/07/2023

¶34

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

¶35

3/3

J.Nagoor Kani v. Virudhunagar Municpality

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

J.Nagoor Kani v. Virudhunagar Municpality

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shanmugam Servai(Died) Vs Sundararaj Naidu

S.Ganesan Vs P.G.Pichai @ Krishnan

Abubakar Vs v.Ponnusamy,S/O.Vairamuthu

Ramakrishnan Vs Mary Graceraj

Syed Vs Selvam

Govindasamy Vs Annalakshmi