Skip to content


S. Packirisamy Vs. G. Uthirapathy(died after suit) and Others - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtChennai Madurai High Court
Decided On
Case NumberC.R.P(PD)(MD)No. 2100 of 2016 & C.M.P(MD)No. 9793 of 2016
Judge
AppellantS. Packirisamy
RespondentG. Uthirapathy(died after suit) and Others
Excerpt:
.....applications. hence aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has come forward with the present civil revision petition before this court. 3. heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the records. 4. during the course of arguments, it was pointed out that the order in the i.a no.341 of 2013 was passed on 13.9.2016.however, the revision has been filed in the year 2016 and therefore there is a delay of more than two years in filing the present civil revision petition. even though the revision was filed in the year 2015, it was numbered and taken up for file in the year 2016. hence, there was an inordinate delay in filing the present civil revision petition. 5. on perusal of the impugned order, it is seen the trial court should not have passed a cryptic order in the.....
Judgment:

(Prayer: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to set aside the fair and decretal order made in I.A.No341 of 2013 in O.S.No.191 of 2013, dated 3.9.2013, on the file of the Principal District Munsif, Kumbakonam.)

1. This revision has been filed seeking for a direction to set aside the fair and decretal order made in I.A.No341 of 2013 in O.S.No.191 of 2013, dated 3.9.2013, on the file of the Principal District Munsif, Kumbakonam.

2. According to the Petitioner, the Petitioner had obtained an exparte order of interim injunction on 3.9.2013 in a petition filed under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 and Section 151 of C.P.C and thereafter the matter was taken up on 3.11.2016 and the said application was closed, stating that the suit itself was ripe for trial. The trial Court has passed an cryptic order without assigning sufficient and valid reason and that the trial Court has to pass a well reasoned order in interlocutory applications. Hence aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has come forward with the present Civil Revision Petition before this Court.

3. Heard the learned counsel for the Petitioner and perused the records.

4. During the course of arguments, it was pointed out that the order in the I.A No.341 of 2013 was passed on 13.9.2016.However, the revision has been filed in the year 2016 and therefore there is a delay of more than two years in filing the present Civil Revision Petition. Even though the revision was filed in the year 2015, it was numbered and taken up for file in the year 2016. Hence, there was an inordinate delay in filing the present Civil Revision Petition.

5. On perusal of the impugned order, it is seen the trial court should not have passed a cryptic order in the interlocutory application. The trial Court has to pass a reasoned and speaking order in the interlocutory application that has been filed under Order 30 Rule 1 and 2 of C.P.C. At this stage, the learned counsel for the Petitioner prayed before this Court that it is suffice for him to dispose of the suit at an early date.

6. In view of the said submission made by the learned counsel for the Petitioner, the Principal District Munsif, Kumbakonam is directed to dispose of the suit in O.S.No.191 of 2013 on its file on merits and in accordance with law, within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

7. With the above direction, this Civil Revision Petition is disposed of. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. No costs.


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