Kamalini v. P.Prakash

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT Civil Appellate Jurisdiction Monday, the Tenth day of February Two Thousand and Twenty Five PRESENT The HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.VIJAYAKUMAR in CRP(MD)No.771 of 2019 Kamalini ..Petitioner/1st Respodent Vs 1 P.Prakash ..1st Respodent/Petitioner 2 Minor. Krishnalini, 3 Minor.Rakshana, D/o Late N.Krishnaraj.

(Minor Respondents 2 and 3 are Rep.By Their Mother and natural guardian kamalini,the petitioner herein) ... Respondents 2 & 3/Respondents 2 & 3 Prayer in C.M.P(MD)No.9585 of 2024:- This Miscellaneous Petition filed under Section 151 of CPC Order 41 Rue 21 of CPC,To rehear the above Civil Revision Petition order dated 10/04/2024 in C.R.P. (MD).No.771 of 2019 on the file of this Hon`ble court and thus render justice. Prayer in C.R.P(MD)No.771 of 2019;- Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India,against the fair and decreetal order dated 01.04.2019 made in I.A.No.1 of 2019 in O.S.No.194 of 2015 on the file of the III Additional District Munsif Court, Tiruchirappalli.

1/4

ORDER:- This Civil Miscellaneous Petition coming on for orders on this day and upon perusing the petition and the affidavit filed in support thereof and upon hearing the arguments of Mr.. M.Pitchai Muthu, Advocate for the Petitioner and of Mr.P.Arun Jayatram Advocate for the respondents , this Court made the following order:

"The Revision petition in CRP(MD)No.771 of 2019 was disposed of on 10.04.2024. The present petition has been filed by the first respondent in the revision petition, seeking to rehear the revision petition. 2.The first respondent herein has filed Caveat before this Court on 12.04.2019. She has not chosen to represent her minor children. When the revision petition came up for hearing on 01.03.2024, this Court had directed the Registry to appoint a legal aid counsel to represent the minor children of the first respondent who are arrayed as the second and the third respondents. This Court has further directed to delete the name of the counsel appearing for the first respondent, because he has not filed Caveat for the second and the third respondents. 3.The Registry has misunderstood the above said order and has proceeded to delete the name of Mr.M.Pitchai Muthu, who was the Counsel for the first respondent. The legal aid Counsel M/s.P.Krishnaveni, was appointed for the first respondent. After hearing the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and the 2/4

legal aid Counsel for the first respondent, this Court has passed an order on 10.04.2024.

4.Now the present application for re-hearing has been filed by the learned Counsel for the first respondent, namely, Mr.M.Pitchai Muthu, who contended that his name should not have been deleted for the first respondent also. According to him, his name could have been deleted only for the second and third respondent. 5.This Court has found that the order has been passed on 10.04.2024 without printing the name of Mr.M.Pitchai Muthu, who had represented the first respondent, namely, M/s.Kamalini.

6.In view of the above said facts, application filed for re-hearing is allowed. The Registry is directed to restore the C.R.P(MD)No.771 of 2019 to file. 7.Post the C.R.P(MD)No.771 of 2019 along with C.R.P(MD)No.1037 of 2022 on 12.02.2025."

Sd/- Assistant Registrar (RTI) // True Copy // /02/2025 Sub Assistant Registrar (CS-I/II/III/IV) RJR 3/4

TO The III Additional District Munsif, Tiruchirappalli Copy to:

The Section Officer, Judicial Section, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai ORDER DATED : 10/02/2025 Post Main CRP hearing dated12/02/2025 ==========================

ORDER

========================== in CRP(MD)No.771 of 2019 Giving direction and etc.

as stated within.

SL(10.02.2025)/ 4P/ 3C Madurai Bench of Madras High Court is issuing certified copies in this format from 17.07.2023. 4/4