Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 1, Cited by 1]

Madras High Court

A.N.Srinivasa Chettiar vs Jagannathababu on 15 March, 2018

Author: Abdul Quddhose

Bench: Abdul Quddhose

        

 
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 15.03.2018

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ABDUL QUDDHOSE 

C.R.P.(NPD) No.1385 of 2007
& M.P.No.1 of 2007

A.N.Srinivasa Chettiar			        	...   Petitioner 
 
Vs.

1. Jagannathababu  	

2. Devarajan,
    Rep by their Power Agent Mr.Haridass,
    Both at No.6, East Raja Street,
    Big Kancheepuram.

3. Yasodhammal

4. Jayanthi @ Vedavalli	                			 ...   Respondents
 

*RR 3 & 4 impleaded as respondents vide order of Court dated 06.11.2017 made in M.P.No.1 of 2014 in C.R.P.No.1385 of 2007.

Prayer: Civil Revision Petition filed under Section 25 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease & Rent Control) Act 1960 as amended by Act 23 of 1993 and Act 1 of 1980 against the Order and Decreetal Order dated 19.09.2005 passed by the learned Appellate Authority, the Subordinate Judge, Madurantakkam, Kancheepuram District in R.C.A.No.3 of 2004 by confirming the order and Decreetal order dated 23.12.1997 passed in R.C.O.P.No.3 of 1987 by the Learned Rent Controller, the District Munsiff, Kancheepuram, Kancheepuram District, fixing the fair rent of Rs.2,000/-
			For Petitioner	: No appearance
                                          
			For Respondent	:  No appearance


O R D E R

The Civil Revision Petition was earlier listed under the caption For Dismissal on 20.02.2018 and when the case was called, there was no representation on the side of the petitioner and it was also recorded that the petitioner has not taken steps to serve notice on RR1 to 4 and therefore, the case was posted under the same caption 'for dismissal' today.

2. Today(15.03.2018) when the case was called, at the first instance at about 12:29 p.m., there was no representation on both sides and therefore, the case was passed over.

3. When the case was called once again at about 1:10 p.m., again there is no representation on both sides. Since there is no appearance on the side of the petitioner, the C.R.P. is dismissed for non-prosecution. However, there shall be no order as to costs.

15.03.2018 Speaking Order / Non Speaking Order Index: Yes / No Internet: Yes / No sts ABDUL QUDDHOSE, J., sts Order in C.R.P.(NPD) No.1385 of 2007 15.03.2018