Veerammal (Died), Ramu (Died), C. Balakrishnan, v. Lakshmanan,

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT Dated: 14.09.2022

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE B.PUGALENDHI REV.APL.C(MD).Nos.119 & 120 of 2022 in CRP(MD)Nos.395 & 396 of 2022 REV.APL.C(MD).No.119 of 2022:- Veerammal (Died) Ramu (Died) C.Balakrishnan ... Review Applicant Vs 1.Lakshmanan 2.Veerapandi 3.Danabalan ... Respondents REV.APL.C(MD).No.120 of 2022:- Veerammal (Died) Ramu (Died) C.Balakrishnan ... Review Applicant Vs 1/4

1.Lakshmanan 2.Raman 3.Bala Krishnan ... Respondents COMMON PRAYER: Review Applications filed under Order 47 Rule 1 read with Section 114 of CPC, to review the order, dated 03.03.2022 passed by this Court in CRP(MD)Nos.395 & 396 of 2022. For Applicant : Mr.M.Vivek Kumar (In both Review Applications) C O M M O N O R D E R These Review Applications have been filed that this Court, while disposing the Civil Revision Petitions has observed that there was no objection by the revision petitioner as well as the respondent with regard to the orders passed in interlocutory applications. However, according to the learned counsel for the review applicant/petitioner, it is not so and therefore, prayed for appropriate orders. 2.Perusal of the order dated 03.03.2022 shows that this Court has recorded the fact that the second defendant in the suit died 2/4

and the application in I.A.No.1 of 2021 was filed only to amend the plaint as there is no legal heirs for the deceased second defendant in the suit and to that factual aspect alone, there was no dispute by the petitioner /defendant.

3.Therefore, there is no reason to interfere with the orders of this Court. It is always open to the petitioner to raise all his grounds in the trial Court.

4.Accordingly, these Review Applications are dismissed. No costs.

14.09.2022 Speaking Order: Yes/no vrn 3/4

B.PUGALENDHI, J.

vrn REV.APL.C(MD).Nos.119 & 120 of 2022 in CRP(MD)Nos.395 & 396 of 2022 14.09.2022 4/4