K.A.Vellappan v. Gnanamaniammal Chathiram
C.R.P.(MD).No.2086 of 2009 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 29.07.2020
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.KALYANASUNDARAM C.R.P.(MD).No.2086 of 2009 and M.P(MD).No.1 of 2009 and CMP(MD).No.8769 of 2017 K.A.Vellappan ... Petitioner/7th Respondent Vs.
1.Gnanamaniammal Chathiram Through its Hereditary Trustee Smt.Ayya Thaiyal Nayagi (died) Through its General Power of Attorney K.Ayya Subramania Mudhaliar 2.K.A.Murugappan 3.K.A.Shamugavel 4.Kumudhavalli ... 1 to 4 Respondents / Petitioners 5.Muthukumar 6.Namachivayam 7.Subramanian 8.Baskaran 9.Abdhul Aalam 10.Sulokshana Jeyapaul ..5 to 10 Respondents/1 to 6 Respondents / 7,8,9,13,18,22 Defendants 11.Vishalakshiammal ..11th Respondent /8th Respondent/Defendant Prayer:- Civil Revision Petition is filed under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure to set aside the fair and decreetal order passed in E.P.No.75 of 1994 in O.S.No.71 of 1988 dated 04.12.2008 on the file of the Principal Sub Court, Tirunelveli. For Petitioner : No appearance For R2 : Mr.P.Thiagarajan
ORDER
This revision has been preferred against the order passed by the Execution Court in E.P.No.75 of 1994 in O.S.No.71 of 1988 on the file of the Principal Sub Court, Tirunelveli. 2.When the matter was taken up for hearing, Mr.P.Thiagarajan, learned counsel for the second respondent would submit that the delivery of possession was effected on 16.03.2019 and E.P itself was terminated on 18.03.2019. According to the learned counsel for the second respondent, nothing survives in this civil revision petition. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 1/2
C.R.P.(MD).No.2086 of 2009 3.In the light of the above submission, this civil revision petition is dismissed as infructuous. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed. Sd/- Deputy Registrar (Accounts) // True Copy // / /2020 Sub Assistant Registrar(CS) msa Note: In view of the present lock down owing to COVID-19 pandemic, a web copy of the order may be utilized for official purposes, but, ensuring that the copy of the order that is presented is the correct copy, shall be the responsibility of the advocate/litigant concerned.
To The Principal Subordinate Judge, Tirunelveli C.R.P.(MD).No.2086 of 2009 and M.P(MD).No.1 of 2009 and CMP(MD).No.8769 of 2017 29.07.2020 SMA/06/08/2020/2P/2C https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2/2