Disposed

S.Kannappan v. Esakkiammal

Madras HC23 Jan 2025CRP(MD)/3107/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Revision petitioner sought return of documents (Exhibits A.1 to A.8) from his suit that ended in a compromise decree; the trial court had ordered notice to the defendant. The High Court set aside the docket order and directed consideration of the application without notice within fifteen days.

What did the court decide?

Docket order set aside; trial court directed to decide R.P.No.48 of 2024 without notice to first respondent within fifteen days.

S.Kannappan Vs Esakkiammal — Property and Title | Madras HC (2025)

¶1

C.R.P(MD)No.3107 of 2024

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 23.01.2025

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE K.GOVINDARAJAN THILAKAVADI

¶6

C.R.P(MD)No.3107 of 2024 and C.M.P(MD)No.17796 of 2024

¶7

S.Kannappan ... Petitioner

¶8

Vs.

¶9

1.Esakkiammai

¶10

2.M.Lekshmana Perumal Pillai ... Respondents

¶11

PRAYER: Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, to set aside the docket order, dated 28.10.2024 passed in R.P.No.48 of 2024 in O.S.No.171 of 2015 on the file of the II Additional Subordinate Court, Nagercoil by allowing this Civil Revision Petition.

¶12

For Petitioner : Mr.S.Vashik Ali for Mr.R.Murugan

¶13

1/4

¶14

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

¶15

C.R.P(MD)No.3107 of 2024

¶16

ORDER

¶17

The present Civil Revision Petition is preferred to set aside the docket order, dated 28.10.2024 passed in R.P.No.48 of 2024 in O.S.No. 171 of 2015 on the file of the II Additional Sub Court, Nagercoil.

¶18

2. According to the revision petitioner, the suit in O.S.No.171 of 2015 was filed by the revision petitioner and the same has attained finality by virtue of a compromise decree, dated 02.02.2016. Thereafter, the revision petitioner has filed an application in R.P.No.48 of 2024 for return of documents marked as Exhibits A.1 to A.8. However, the Trial Court ordered notice to the first respondent / defendant, which is not required. As per Order XIII, Rule 9 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, the petitioner is entitled to get back the admitted documents marked in the suit and since there is no appeal preferred, the petitioner is entitled to get back the documents marked on its side as Exhibits A.1 to A.8.

¶19

3. Considering the above facts and circumstances of the case, the docket order passed by the Trial Court is set aside and the Trial Court is

¶20

2/4

¶21

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

¶22

C.R.P(MD)No.3107 of 2024

¶23

directed to consider the application in R.P.No.48 of 2024 without ordering any notice to the first respondent, within a period of fifteen (15)

¶24

days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶25

4. Accordingly, this Civil Revision Petition stands disposed of.

¶26

There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition stands closed.

¶27

23.01.2025

¶28

NCC : Yes / No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes BTR

¶29

¶30

The II Additional Subordinate Court, Nagercoil.

¶31

3/4

¶32

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

¶33

C.R.P(MD)No.3107 of 2024

¶34

K.GOVINDARAJAN THILAKAVADI, J.

¶35

BTR

¶36

Order made in C.R.P(MD)No.3107 of 2024

¶37

23.01.2025

¶38

4/4

¶39

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

S.Kannappan v. Esakkiammal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S.Kannappan v. Esakkiammal

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

Natarajan Vs Periyasamy

N.Chidambaram @ Vishnukumar Vs Kr.Pandi

Gobu @ Rajagopal Vs Lakshmi

S.Selvaraj(died) Vs v.David Michael

Marimuthu Vs Sivasamy Kumar

R. Murugesan Alias Murugan Vs M.L.Dinesh