Madras High Court
Gnanam Ammal vs Jayaraman on 12 January, 2023
CRP Nos.511 & 512 of 2012
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 12.01.2023
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN
CRP.Nos.511 & 512 of 2012
CRP.No.511 of 2012;-
Gnanam Ammal ..Petitioner
Vs.
Subramanian (Died)
1.Jayaraman
2.Raghupathy
3.Ekanathan
4.Natarajan
5.Kumar
6.Shanthi
7.Uma
8.Viji
9.Lilly
10.Sundaralakshmi
11.Arul
12.Krishnakumari
13.Jothi
14.Jayalakshmi ..Respondents
[R1 to R4 and 9 to 14 are not
necessary parties to the civil
revision petition. Hence, notice may
be dispensed with.]
CRP.No.512 of 2012;-
Gnanam Ammal ..Petitioner
Vs.
Subramanian (Died)
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRP Nos.511 & 512 of 2012
1.Jayaraman
2.Raghupathy
3.Ekanathan
4.Natarajan
5.Sundaralakshmi
6.Arul ..Respondents
[R1 to R5 are unnecessary parties
for this civil revision petition.
Hence, notice may be dispensed
with.]
Common prayer: Civil Revision Petitions filed under Section 115 of Code of
Civil Procedure, to set aside the fair and decreetal order of the Principal District
Judge, Cuddalore, dismissing I.A.Nos.243 and 244 of 2004 in unnumbered
C.M.A. /2004 dated 19.07.2011.
(In both petitions)
For Petitioner : Mr.R.Dhanasekar
For Respondents
For R1 to 5 : Notice dispensed with
For R6 : Not ready in notice
COMMON ORDER
These civil revision petitions have been filed as against the fair and
decreetal order dated 19.07.2011 passed in I.A.Nos.243 and 244 of 2004 in
unnumbered C.M.A.No. /2004 on the file of the Principal District Judge,
Cuddalore, thereby dismissing the applications filed to condone the delay.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRP Nos.511 & 512 of 2012
2. The petitioner is the one of the defendant in the suit filed for partition.
She filed an application before the trial Court for the purpose of recording a
settlement arrived between the parties. There was a talk of compromise and
accordingly, a compromise decree was passed. In fact, it was decreed on the
basis of the judgment and decree passed by this Court in appeal suit. As per the
terms of compromise, simultaneously, suit for specific performance was also
filed and the same was also decreed. Thereafter, as per the preliminary decree,
final decree was passed. All the parties were allowed in their respective share.
Therefore, nothing survives in the proceedings and however, the petitioner filed
a petition to set aside the exparte decree and filed a petition to condone the
delay. The Courts below rightly dismissed the applications for the reason that
already the matter has been settled between the parties and accordingly, final
decree was also passed. It is clear that in order to revive back the proceedings
the said applications were filed. Therefore, this Court finds no infirmity or
illegality in the order passed by the Courts below.
3. Accordingly, these civil revision petitions stand dismissed. There shall
be no order as to costs.
12.01.2023
Speaking/Non-speaking order
Index : Yes/No
ata
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRP Nos.511 & 512 of 2012
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN.J,
ata
To
The Principal District Judge,
Cuddalore.
CRP.Nos.511 & 512 of 2012
12.01.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
