Skip to content


P. Malayappan Vs. The Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Lakshmipuram, Dindigul District and Another - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtChennai Madurai High Court
Decided On
Case NumberC.R.P(PD)(MD)No. 2283 of 2016 & C.M.P(MD)No. 10510 of 2016
Judge
AppellantP. Malayappan
RespondentThe Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Lakshmipuram, Dindigul District and Another
Excerpt:
.....in c.m.a.(cs)sr.no.8755/27.10.2015, dated 9.3.2016 on the file of the principal district court, dindigul district, dindigul.) 1. this revision has been filed seeking for a direction to set aside the order passed in i.a.no.296 of 2015 in c.m.a.(cs)sr.no.8755/27.10.2015, dated 9.3.2016 on the file of the principal district court, dindigul district, dindigul. 2. a perusal of the counter statement filed by the department, reveals that the surcharge proceedings notice was served on the revision petitioner, but the respondent has not produced any document to show that the said notice has been served on the revision petitioner. 3. in view of the above submission of the parties and admittedly the revision petitioner has not produced any medical certificate in support of his contention in the.....
Judgment:

(Prayer: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to set aside the order passed in I.A.No.296 of 2015 in C.M.A.(CS)SR.No.8755/27.10.2015, dated 9.3.2016 on the file of the Principal District Court, Dindigul District, Dindigul.)

1. This revision has been filed seeking for a direction to set aside the order passed in I.A.No.296 of 2015 in C.M.A.(CS)SR.No.8755/27.10.2015, dated 9.3.2016 on the file of the Principal District Court, Dindigul District, Dindigul.

2. A perusal of the counter statement filed by the Department, reveals that the surcharge proceedings notice was served on the revision petitioner, but the respondent has not produced any document to show that the said notice has been served on the revision Petitioner.

3. In view of the above submission of the parties and admittedly the revision petitioner has not produced any Medical Certificate in support of his contention in the affidavit, due to the aforesaid illness, he was unable to appear before the Court. Hence, there is an inordinate delay caused in filing the appeal.

4. The learned counsel for the respondents produced the acknowledgement for proof of service, served to the revision petitioner. The said fact was also disputed by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner.

5. Taking into consideration of the above facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice, without going into the merits of the case, both the counsels undertakes that they will produce relevant document before the Tribunal to prove their case. By giving opportunity to both parties, the order passed in I.A.No.296 of 2015 in C.M.A.(CS)SR.No.8755/27.10.2015, dated 9.3.2016, on the file of the Principal District Court, Dindigul District, Dindigul is set aside and the trial Court is directed to decide the above said application afresh on merits after providing adequate opportunity to both the parties for producing necessary documents in the aforesaid application.

6. With the above direction, this Civil Revision Petition is allowed. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. No costs.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //