Raju Naidu Vs Chanemouga Sundaran

Prayer in C.R.P.(NPD) No.450 of 2003 : Civil Revision Petition filed under Section 115 of Code of Civil Procedure against the common order dated 13.12.2001 in Civil Review Application No.3 of 1994 in the order and decree dated 06.08.1993 made in A.S.No.146 of 1986 on the file of the Court of III Additional District Judge, Pondicherry.

¶18

Page 1 of 5

¶19

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

¶20

C.R.P.(NPD) Nos.450 & 451 of 2003

¶21

Prayer in C.R.P.(NPD) No.451 of 2003 : Civil Revision Petition filed under Section 115 of Code of Civil Procedure against the common order dated 13.12.2001 in Civil Review Application No.4 of 1994 in the order and decree dated 06.08.1993 made in A.S.No.145 of 1989 on the file of the Court of III Additional District Judge, Pondicherry.

¶22

For Petitioner : No appearance in both petitions (Petitioner's name printed in the cause list – not appeared)

¶23

For R1 to R8 : Mr.R.Sreedhar in both petitions R9 : Given up

¶24

C O M M O N O R D E R

¶25

Challenging the order of the III Additional District Judge, Pondicherry, dated 13.12.2001, dismissing the Review Application Nos.3 and 4 of 1994 in A.S.Nos.146 of 1986 & 145 of 1989, these two Civil Revision Petitions are filed.

¶26

2.Originally, the suit in O.S.No.4 of 1983 has been filed by the

¶27

respondents herein for declaration. The suit has been decreed. The counter claim raised by the revision petitioner was also negatived, however, there

¶28

Page 2 of 5

¶29

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

¶30

C.R.P.(NPD) Nos.450 & 451 of 2003

¶31

was a direction to the plaintiffs to refund the advance amount to the defendant. Appeals were filed by both the parties as against the judgment and decree in the suit, in A.S.Nos.146 of 1986 and 145 of 1989. Both the appeals were disposed of by a common judgment dated 06.08.1993. Thereafter, review applications have been filed by the revision petitioner in Review Application Nos.3 and 4 of 1994 in A.S.Nos.146 of 1986 & 145 of 1989 respectively. The said review applications were also dismissed by common order dated 13.12.2001. Challenging the order in the review applications, the present revisions have been filed.

¶32

3.In the meanwhile, it appears that delivery has been effected in favour of the respondents/plaintiffs in E.P.No.286 of 1999. Challenging the order passed by the Executing Court, a Civil Revision Petition has been filed in C.R.P.No.4385 of 2014. This Court, by order dated 18.01.2018, has dismissed the said Civil Revision Petition. Challenging the dismissal of the Civil Revision Petition, Civil Appeal has been filed before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.3616 of 2024. The Hon'ble Apex Court has also dismissed the civil appeal.

¶33

Page 3 of 5

¶34

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

¶35

C.R.P.(NPD) Nos.450 & 451 of 2003

¶36

4.Now, the fact remains that delivery has been effected. The present revision petitions are only against the dismissal of the review applications which were dismissed by the Appellate Court. Further, the petitioner, having filed the revision petitions, has not appeared before this Court. Therefore, this Court is of the view that no useful purpose will be served in keeping these revisions pending, as the matter has become infructuous and is devoid of any merits.

¶37

5.Hence, these Civil Revision Petitions are dismissed as infructuous. No costs. Consquently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

¶38

04.06.2025

¶39

mkn

¶40

Internet : Yes Index : Yes / No Speaking order / Nonspeaking order Neutral Citation : Yes / No

¶41

To

¶42

The III Additional District Judge, Pondicherry.