Dismissed¶27

Ulaganathan v. Chinnammal (DIED)1.KALIYAMURTHY

Madras HC15 Jul 2026CRP/3494/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Madras High Court, order dated 15-07-2026, P.B. Balaji J., CRP No. 3494 of 2018 & CMP.No.19603 of 2018 (running headers bear 'CRP No. 1575 of 2026'): Article 227 revision by Ulaganathan versus Chinnammal (Died) and others, challenging the order and decreetal order dated 19.12.2017 in I.A.No.307 of 2017 in I.A.No.534 of 2002 in O.S.No.159 of 1995, Principal District Munsif, Chidambaram; dismissed as infructuous because the final decree had already been passed (submission recorded from both sides); connected CMP closed; no costs.

What did the court decide?

The final decree in the suit has already been passed and hence nothing survives for consideration in this revision. ¶20

Ulaganathan Vs Chinnammal (DIED)1.KALIYAMURTHY — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2026)

¶1

CRP No. 1575 of 2026

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 15-07-2026

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P.B. BALAJI

¶6

CRP No. 3494 of 2018 & CMP.No.19603 of 2018

Ulaganathan

..Petitioner(s)

Chinnammal (Died) 1.Kaliyamurthy Gopal Padayatchi (Died) Natesa Padayatchi (Died) Kasinatha Padayatchi (Died) Chinnasamy Padayatchi (Died) Ponnusamy (Died) 2.Malliga 3.Jayakantham 4.Sekar 5.Panneerselavam 6.Vanchinathan 7.Selvi 8.Valarmathi 9.Ezhilmathi 10.Balasubramanian 11.Chandrothayam 12.Sivagami 13.Vasantha 14.Sarasu 15.Radhakrishnan 16.Susila 17.Ramakrishnan 18.Sulochana 19.Gnanavel 20.Munusami 21.Susila 22.Somasundaram 23.Saravanan 24.Rajendran

¶11

__________ Page1 of 4

¶12

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

¶13

CRP No. 1575 of 2026

¶14

25.Manoranjitham 26.Palaniammal 27.Subhasri 28.Sethamirtham 29.Palaniammal 30.Kalaivani 31.Kandippan 32.Satish

¶15

..Respondent(s)

¶16

Prayer: Civil Revision petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, to set aside the order and decreetal order dated 19.12.2017 passed in I.A.No.307 of 2017 in I.A.No.534 of 2002 in O.S.No.159 of 1995 on the file of the Principal District Munsif, Chidambaram.

¶17

For Petitioner(s): Mr.R.Lokesh for Mr.AR.Karthik Lakshmanan For Respondent(s): M/s.R.Meenal

¶18

ORDER

¶19

The learned counsel for the petitioner brings to my notice that the final

¶20

decree has already been passed and hence, nothing survives for any consideration in this revision.

¶21

2.The learned counsel for the respondents also affirms the factum of final

¶22

decree being passed and the revision being infructuous.