P.Karl Marx v. M.P.Aravinda

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 20.01.2022

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUBRAMANIAN (Heard through Video Conferencing) P.Karl Marx ... Petitioner Vs 1.P.Aravinda 2.The Commissioner Corporation of Chennai Rippon Building, Chennai 600 003.

3.The Executive Engineer, Corporation of Chennai Zone IX, Lake Area Nungambakkam, Chennai 600 034.

... Respondents Prayer: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to set aside the order dated 30.12.2021 passed by the learned 1st Assistant Judge, City Civil Court at Chennai in IA.Sr.No.54463/2021 in OS.No.12741/2009 and consequently direct the learned Judge/Trial Court to permit the petitioner to put forth his case through oral/documentary 1/5

evidences and written arguments along side the respondents 2 and 3 in the suit in OS.No.12741/2009 in line with the orders passed on 15.04.2021 by this Court in CRP.No.707/2018.

For Petitioner : Mr.P.Karl Marx Petitioner-in-person

ORDER

(1) The application filed by the petitioner/party-in-person seeking permission to support the Corporation of Chennai, has been dismissed by the Trial Court on the ground that there is already an order in IA.No.3/2021 permitting the petitioner to support the Corporation of Chennai in defence of the suit. This Court while disposing of CRP.PD.No.707/2018 has held that the petitioner is neither a proper or a necessary party ; but has given liberty to the petitioner/party-in-person to assist the Corporation of Chennai in defence of the suit.

(2) Mr.P.Karl Marx, appearing in person, would claim that he should be allowed to let in evidence. I do not think he can be allowed to let in evidence since this Court had already come to the conclusion that the 2/5

petitioner is neither a necessary nor a proper party to the suit. The petitioner/party-in-person would submit that he has sought for review of the order in CRP.PD.No.707/2018 and the same is pending.

(3) It is open to him to move the review and seek any order as he pleases in the review. The Trial Court was justified in rejecting his application seeking permission for assistance as the same has already been granted.

(4) Hence, I do not see any merit in the revision. The Civil Revision fails and it is accordingly dismissed. No costs.

20.01.2022 AP Internet : Yes Index : No Speaking order: Yes 3/5

To 1.The I Assistant Judge City Civil Court, Chennai.

2.The Commissioner Corporation of Chennai Rippon Building, Chennai 600 003.

3.The Executive Engineer, Corporation of Chennai Zone IX, Lake Area Nungambakkam, Chennai 600 034.

4/5

R.SUBRAMANIAN, J.

AP 20.01.2022 5/5