← Library
Madras High CourtCRP(MD)/419/2014dismissed

Thanislas (Died) v. M.Panchavarnam @ Panchatcharam

2023-11-03Honourable Mr Justice P.B. Balaji4 pages

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 03.11.2023

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.B.BALAJI and C.M.P(MD)Nos. 7280 to 7282 of 2019, 1562 to 1564 of 2021 and M.P(MD)No.1 of 2014 1.Thanislas (Died) ...1st Petitioner / Petitioner / Defendant 2.Jesu Jeyamary 3.Arockiaraja

...Petitioners 2 and 3 /LRs of the deceased first

petitioner (PP2 and 3 are brought on record as LRS of the deceased sole petitioner vide court order dated 07.01.2021 made in C.M.P(MD)Nos.7280 to 7282 of 2019 in CRP(MD)No.419 of 2014 by RSMJ) Vs.

M.Panchavanam @ Panchatcharam

...Respondent/Respondent/Plaintiff

2.Arockiaselvi 3.Anthonysamy (Respondents 2 and 3 are also brought on record as LRs of the deceased sole petitioner vide court order dated 03.11.2023 made in CMP(MD)Nos. 7280 to 7282 of 2019 in CRP(MD)No.419 of 2014 by PBBJ) PRAYER : This Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India against the fair and decreetal order passed in I.A.NO. 314 of 2012 in O.S.No.99 of 2011 dated 18.11.2013 on the file of the Additional District Munsif, Karaikudi.

For Petitioners :Mr.Sundar Srinivasan 1/4

O RDER Today, the matter has been listed under the caption 'for being spoken to' since in the affidavit filed along with LR petition to implead the legal heirs of the deceased revision petitioner, it is mentioned that two of the legal heirs have to be impleaded as the petitioners 2 and 3 and two of the legal heirs have to be impleaded as the respondents 2 and 3. However, in the petition, particularly in prayer portion, 'two of legal heirs are sought to be impleaded as respondents' was inadvertently omitted and this Court has proceeded to allow the petition as prayed for and therefore, only the proposed petitioners 2 and 3 are impleaded as the petitioners 2 and 3.

2. The Registry is directed to carry out the abovesaid mistake and to implead the proposed respondents 2 and 3 as the respondents 2 and 3 in the Civil Revision Petition.

3. Though the case is listed to implead the proposed respondents 2 and 3, apart from mentioning the abovesaid mistake, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner states that the present Civil Revision Petition arises out of dismissal of Section 10 C.P.C application and there was no stay in the Civil Revision Petition and the 2/4

suit was proceeded with and subsequently, the suit itself came to be dismissed and hence, nothing survives for consideration in the Civil Revision Petition.

4. In view of the fact that the suit itself was dismissed, this Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

5. In the event of the suit being restored, it is open to the revision petitioner to take out appropriate steps to revive the present Civil Revision Petition.

03.11.2023 Speaking : Yes / No NCC : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No Index : Yes / No CM To, 1.The Additional District Munsif, Karaikudi.

2.The Section Officer, VR.Section, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, High Court.

3/4

P.B.BALAJI. J., CM and C.M.P(MD)Nos. 7280 to 7282 of 2019, 1562 to 1564 of 2021 and M.P(MD)No.1 of 2014 03.11.2023 4/4