M/S.Ponmari Enterprises Private Ltd v. C.S.Siva Subramanian (Died)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 15.03.2023 CORAM :

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R. MAHADEVAN AND THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ABDUL QUDDHOSE Review Application Nos.232 to 235 of 2022 M/s.Ponmari Enterprises Private Ltd., Rep. by its Director K.Malathi, 2/495A, Thiruvalluvar Road, Red Hills, Chennai - 600 052.

...

Applicant in all Review Applications Vs.

C.S.Siva Subramanian (Died) 1.C.S.Rajamanickam 2.C.S.Thirugnana Sambandam 3.C.S.Meenakshi ...

Respondents 1 to 3 in Rev.Appl.Nos.232 and 234 of 2022 (Cause title accepted vide Court order dated 09.11.2022 made in C.M.P.No.18410 of 2022 in Rev.Sr.No.74998 of 2017 and C.M.P.No.18416 of 2022 in Rev.Sr.No.74999 of 2017) (R1 to R3 brought on record as legal representatives of the deceased Siva Subramanian vide court order dated 09.11.2022 made in C.M.P.Nos.18410 and 18416 of 2022 in Rev.Sr.Nos.74998 and 74999 of 2017) Page 1/5

1.C.S.Rajamanickam 2.C.S.Thirugnana Sambandam 3.C.S.Meenakshi ...

Respondents in Rev.Appl.Nos.233 of 2022 1.C.S.Rajamanickam 2.C.S.Thirugnana Sambandam ...

Respondents in Rev.Appl.No.235 of 2022 Review Applications are filed under Section 114 of Civil Procedure Code under Order XLVII Rule 1 of Civil Procedure Code against the Judgment and Decree passed in O.S.A.Nos.153, 154, 155 and 156 of 2017, dated 21.07.2017. For Applicant in all Review Applications :

Mr.S.Jayakumar For respondents in all Review Applications : Mr.Simon Jeya Kumar * * * COMMON ORDER (Order of the Court was made by R. MAHADEVAN, J.) The review applicant is the plaintiff in the civil suits viz., CS Nos.38, 39, 41 and 42 of 2008 and they filed the same for specific performance. By judgment and decree dated 12.01.2016, the suits were dismissed. Challenging the same, the plaintiff filed OSA Nos.153 to 156 of 2017, which also ended in dismissal thereby confirming the judgment and order of the learned Judge dated Page 2/5

12.01.2016 passed in the civil suits and consequently, directing the Registry to return the plaints to the plaintiff for the purpose of presenting the same before the appropriate forum within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. Aggrieved by the same, the plaintiff has preferred these applications seeking to review the said order passed by this court in the original side appeals.

2.Today, when these matters were taken up for consideration, the learned counsel appearing for both sides submitted that the matters have been settled between the parties. They have filed joint memorandums of compromise, dated 11.02.2023, signed by the review applicant/plaintiff and the respondents/ defendants, to that effect.

3.This court also perused the aforesaid memorandums of compromise, wherein it is categorically stated that the parties have mutually agreed to settle the disputes/legal proceedings amicably pending in the High Court viz., review applications.

4.Therefore, all these review applications are disposed of, in terms of the compromise entered into between the parties. The joint memorandums of Page 3/5

compromise dated 11.02.2023 signed by both parties, shall form part of the decree. No costs.

[R.M.D., J.] [A.Q., J.] 15.03.2023 r n s Speaking Order / Non-speaking order Internet : Yes.

Index : Yes/No Copy to The Sub Assistant Registrar, (Original Side) Madras High Court.

Page 4/5

R. MAHADEVAN, J.

and ABDUL QUDDHOSE, J.

r n s Review Application Nos.232 to 235 of 2022 15.03.2023 Page 5/5