Madras High CourtCRP/3940/2014dismissed as infructuous

D.Kumar v. Anvarbasha

2019-09-19Honourable Mr Justice R. Pongiappan4 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 19.09.2019

CORAM:

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.PONGIAPPAN CRP.NPD.Nos.3940 & 3941 of 2014 and M.P.No.1 of 2014 D.Kumar

...Petitioner in both CRPs

Vs Anvarbasha

...Respondent in both CRPs

COMMON PRAYER: Civil Revision Petitions filed under Section 115 of C.P.C., to set aside the order and decree dated 16.07.2014 made in E.P.No.90 of 2014 in O.S.No.127 of 2013 and E.A.No.159 of 2014 in E.P.No.90 of 2014 in O.S.No.127 of 2013 respectively, on the file of I Additional Subordinate Court, Cuddalore.

For Petitioner in both CRPs : Mr.J.Jayan For Mr.D.Ravichander For Respondent in both CRPs : Mr.M.Gnanamoorthy For Mr.N.Suresh C O M M O N O R D E R Aggrieved over the orders dated 16.07.2014 passed in E.P.No.90 of 2014 in O.S.No.127 of 2013 and E.A.No.159 of 2014 in E.P.No.90 of 2014 in O.S.No.127 of 2013, by the learned I Additional Subordinate Judge, Cuddalore, the petitioner, who is the plaintiff in the 1/4

above referred suit has filed these two revision petitions.

2. Originally, the petitioner filed a suit in O.S.No.127 of 2013 on the file of the learned I Additional Subordinate Judge, Cuddalore, as against the respondent and sought for the relief of direction directing the respondent to receive the balance sale consideration of Rs.25,000/- and execute sale deed in favour of the petitioner. In the said suit, an exparte order was passed on 24.01.2014, as against the respondent. It is obvious to note that the above execution petition in E.P.No.90 of 2014 has been filed by the petitioner based on the exparte decree passed in O.S.No.127 of 2013.

3. Today when these two petitions are taken up for hearing, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as the respondent are present. It is submitted on either side that the exparte order passed as against the respondent in O.S.No.127 of 2013 was set aside and subsequently, the execution petition in E.P.No.90 of 2014 has been closed. Since, E.P.No.90 of 2014 has been closed, automatically, the order passed in E.A.No.159 of 2014 has become infructuous.

4. In view of the above submission made by the learned 2/4

counsel appearing on either side and considering the fact that these two Civil Revision Petitions have been filed based on the order passed in the above said E.P. and E.A., nothing survives for further adjudication in these revision petitions.

5. Accordingly, both the Civil Revision petitions are dismissed as infructuous. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. No costs.

19.09.2019 Internet : Yes / No Index : Yes / No Speaking / Non Speaking order rts 3/4

R.PONGIAPPAN, J.

rts To The I Additional Subordinate Court, Cuddalore CRP.NPD.Nos.3940 & 3941 of 2014 and M.P.No.1 of 2014 19.09.2019 4/4