Madras High Court
S.Rajendran vs N.Nareshkumar .. 1St on 16 December, 2021
CRP.(PD).No.608/2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 16.12.2021
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.S.SUNDAR
CRP.(PD).No.608/2019 and CMP.No.15354/2021
[Video Conferencing]
1.S.Rajendran .. Petitioner/2nd Plaintiff
Vs.
1.N.Nareshkumar .. 1st Respondent/1st Plaintiff
2.Balu Mohan Rao
3.Baskar Rao
4.V.Padmaraj
5.Jayamohan .. Respondents 2 to 5/
Defendants 1 to 4
Prayer:- Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution
of India, to set aside the judgment and decree, dated 01.11.2018, made in
O.S.No.94/2018, by the learned Principal District Sessions Judge,
Thiruvallur.
For Petitioner : No appearance
For R1 : Mr.K.S.Kumar
For R2 and R3 : Mr.M.Stalin
For R4 and R5 : Given up
ORDER
(1) This Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order dated
01.11.2018 made in the Memo in O.S.No.94/2018 on the file of the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRP.(PD).No.608/2019
learned Principal District Sessions Judge, Thiruvallur.
(2) Brief facts that are necessary for disposal of this Civil Revision
Petition are as follows:
(3) From the perusal of materials and pleadings, this Court finds that
the Civil Revision Petition is filed vexatiously by a person
claiming to be a Power of Attorney agent of the 1st plaintiff in the
Suit in O.S.No.39/2017. However, the 1st plaintiff himself in the
Suit has admitted before the Lower Court that the Power of
Attorney Deed was cancelled long prior to the Suit and the Suit has
been filed suppressing the fact.
(4) It is to be noted that the Suit itself was filed for a declaration that
the 1st plaintiff, is the owner of the Suit property. When the 1st
plaintiff disowned any right, it is obvious that the revision
petitioner either must be a land grabber or somebody who tries to
grab the property with the ulterior motive.
(5) It is also brought to the notice of this Court that the Suit was
dismissed as withdrawn on the basis of the Memo submitted by the
1st plaintiff stating that the Suit is filed with an ill motive without
getting instructions from the 1st plaintiff.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRP.(PD).No.608/2019
(6) Though the prayer of the Civil Revision Petition has become
infructuous, this Court wanted the appearance of petitioner so that
this court may pass appropriate directions including registration of
a criminal case against the revision petitioner at the instance of the
other parties to this Civil Revision Petition.
(7) However, the 1st petitioner has not appeared before this Court.
despite notice being sent. Since, non-appearance of petitioner
appears to be again an attempt to get over the present situation.
This Court, while dismissing the Civil Revision Petition as
infructuous, is incline to observe that the conduct of the revision
petitioner is fraudulent and that he is liable to be prosecuted for
perjury or fraud or any other offence by the interested persons in
this litigation or in any other litigation. This observation is required
to protect the innocent litigants from such land grabbers like the
petitioner who always pose potential threat to the society. No costs.
Consequently, connected Civil Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
16.12.2021
cda
Internet : Yes
To
The Principal District Sessions Judge, Thiruvallur.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRP.(PD).No.608/2019
S.S.SUNDAR, J.,
cda
CRP.(PD).No.608/2019
16.12.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
