Skip to content


J. Sam Christopher Durai Singh Vs. P. Catherine Beaula - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtChennai Madurai High Court
Decided On
Case NumberCRP (PD) (MD) No. 1733 of 2016
Judge
AppellantJ. Sam Christopher Durai Singh
RespondentP. Catherine Beaula
Excerpt:
.....227 of the constitution of india against the docket order passed by the learned principal district judge, virudhunagar at srivilliputhur in d.o.p.sr.no.1188 of 2016 on 26.7.2016 and praying for a direction to number the same and to take the case for hearing on merits.) 1. this civil revision petition is directed against the docket order passed by the learned principal district judge, virudhunagar at srivilliputhur in d.o.p.sr.no.1188 of 2016 on 26.07.2016 and praying for a direction to number the same and to take the case for hearing, on merits. 2. the petitioner has filed the original d.o.p.sr.no.1188 of 2016 under section 19(1)(x) of the indian divorce act, 1869 and the learned principal district judge, virudhunagar at srivilliputhur has assigned d.o.p.sr.no.1188 of 2016 to the above.....
Judgment:

(Prayer: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the docket order passed by the learned Principal District Judge, Virudhunagar at Srivilliputhur in D.O.P.SR.No.1188 of 2016 on 26.7.2016 and praying for a direction to number the same and to take the case for hearing on merits.)

1. This Civil Revision Petition is directed against the docket order passed by the learned Principal District Judge, Virudhunagar at Srivilliputhur in D.O.P.SR.No.1188 of 2016 on 26.07.2016 and praying for a direction to number the same and to take the case for hearing, on merits.

2. The Petitioner has filed the Original D.O.P.SR.No.1188 of 2016 under Section 19(1)(x) of the Indian Divorce Act, 1869 and the learned Principal District Judge, Virudhunagar at Srivilliputhur has assigned D.O.P.SR.No.1188 of 2016 to the above said case. On scrutiny, the said case was returned, pointing out the following defects:

Returned:

1. Section of law to be correctly mentioned?

2. How this petition is maintainable for a period of not less than two years to be stated?

3. Blanks to be filled up?

Hence returned. Time one month.

3. The above said case was represented by the Petitioner again on 26.07.2016 and the same was again returned by the Trial Court with an endorsement which reads as follows:

''No representation. This Petition is filed within two years of marriage. No reasons stated in the petition or through representations. Hence this petition is returned.''

Challenging the said endorsement,the present Civil Revision Petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

4. However, considering the facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice, the Principal District Judge, Virudhunagar at Srivilliputhur is directed to number the D.O.P.SR.No.1188 of 2016, without insisting upon two years time limit to file the above said D.O,P from the date of their marriage. It is made clear that if the Petitioner has complied with the other defects pointed out by the Court below, the learned Principal District Judge, Virudhunagar at Srivilliputhur to number the D.O.P.SR.No.1188 of 2016 and take the same on file and thereafter, it is open to the Principal District Judge, Virudhunagar at Srivilliputhur to consider and dispose of the above said case on merits and in accordance with law, by considering the objection regarding the maintainability of the D.O.P.

5. With the above directions, the Civil Revision Petition is disposed of. No costs.

(Note: Registry is directed to return the original of D.O.P.SR.No.1188 of 2016 to the Petitioner, so as to enable him to represent before thereafter Court below, after substituting the same with xerox copy.)


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