Skip to content


R.M. Rajendran Vs. S. Mohamed Ali - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtChennai Madurai High Court
Decided On
Case NumberC.R.P(MD)No. 1864 of 2016 & C.M.P(MD)No. 1856 of 2016
Judge
AppellantR.M. Rajendran
RespondentS. Mohamed Ali
Excerpt:
constitution of india, 1950 article 226 civil procedure code, 1908 entitlement to relief this revision has been filed seeking for direction to appellate authority to dispose of matter at an early date. court held whether service has been completed or not, it is for petitioner to satisfy requirements regarding service to appellate court as per provisions of the act and in this aspect, this court will not express any opinion on service of notice on respondent if service has been completed as per provisions of the act, appellate court is directed to dispose of matter as early as possible, without being influenced by any of observations made by this court revision petition is disposed of. (para: 5) .....matter has been adjourned for fresh notice to the respondent and at this stage, the petitioner has filed this revision before this court. 5. now the r.c.a is pending before the appellate court at notice stage. according to the learned counsel for the petitioner paper publication has been effected on the respondent and that the service of notice on the respondent has been completed. whether the service has been completed or not, it is for the petitioner to satisfy the requirements regarding service to the appellate court as per the provisions of the act and in this aspect, this court will not express any opinion on the service of notice on the respondent. if the service has been completed as per the provisions of the act, the appellate court is directed to dispose of the r.c.a.no.25 of.....
Judgment:

(Prayer: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to direct the Rent Control Appellate Authority(Principal Subordinate Judge)Tiruchirappalli, Tiruchi District to dispose of R.C.A.No.23 of 2015 at an early date.)

1. This revision has been filed seeking for a direction to the Rent Control Appellate Authority(Principal Sub-ordinate Judge)Tiruchirappalli, Tiruchi District, to dispose of R.C.A.No.23 of 2015 at an early date.

2. The contention of Petitioner is that the respondent herein/landlord filed R.C.O.P.No.17 of 2013 before the III Additional District Munsif Court(Rent Controller), Tiruchirappalli. In the aforesaid R.C.O.P., the Petitioner herein filed I.A.No.101 of 2014 for a direction under Order XXVI Rule 10(A) and under Section 151 of Civil Procedure Code to appoint an Advocate Commissioner to compare the LTI of Liyakath Ali in Ex.R1 with another LTI of the Petitioner by the Finger Print Expert. The said application was dismissed by the trial Court. Against which, the revision Petitioner herein filed R.C.A.No. 25 of 2013 before the Rent Control Appellate Authority(Principal Subordinate Judge), Tiruchirappalli and the same is pending before the appellate Court.

3. According to the learned counsel for the revision Petitioner, service to the respondent was completed and has filed the present revision to dispose of the R.C.A.No.25 of 2013 within the time frame fixed by this Court.

4. A perusal of the records would show that after paper publication, fresh notice has been ordered from 28.9.2015 and every time, the matter has been adjourned for fresh notice to the respondent and at this stage, the Petitioner has filed this revision before this Court.

5. Now the R.C.A is pending before the appellate Court at notice stage. According to the learned counsel for the Petitioner paper publication has been effected on the respondent and that the service of notice on the respondent has been completed. Whether the service has been completed or not, it is for the Petitioner to satisfy the requirements regarding service to the appellate Court as per the provisions of the Act and in this aspect, this Court will not express any opinion on the service of notice on the respondent. If the service has been completed as per the provisions of the Act, the appellate Court is directed to dispose of the R.C.A.No.25 of 2013 as early as possible, without being influenced by any of the observations made by this Court.

6. With the above observation and direction, the 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 //