Madras High Court
P.Karl Marx vs P.Aravinda on 20 January, 2022
Author: R.Subramanian
Bench: R.Subramanian
CRP.PD.No.3064/2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 20.01.2022
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUBRAMANIAN
CRP.PD.No.3064/2021
(Heard through Video Conferencing)
P.Karl Marx ... Petitioner
Vs
1.P.Aravinda
2.The Commissioner
Corporation of Chennai
Rippon Building,
Chennai 600 003.
3.The Executive Engineer,
Corporation of Chennai
Zone IX, Lake Area
Nungambakkam, Chennai 600 034. ... Respondents
Prayer: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of
India to set aside the order dated 30.12.2021 passed by the learned 1st
Assistant Judge, City Civil Court at Chennai in IA.Sr.No.54463/2021 in
OS.No.12741/2009 and consequently direct the learned Judge/Trial Court to
permit the petitioner to put forth his case through oral/documentary
1/5
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRP.PD.No.3064/2021
evidences and written arguments along side the respondents 2 and 3 in the
suit in OS.No.12741/2009 in line with the orders passed on 15.04.2021 by
this Court in CRP.No.707/2018.
For Petitioner : Mr.P.Karl Marx
Petitioner-in-person
ORDER
(1) The application filed by the petitioner/party-in-person seeking permission to support the Corporation of Chennai, has been dismissed by the Trial Court on the ground that there is already an order in IA.No.3/2021 permitting the petitioner to support the Corporation of Chennai in defence of the suit. This Court while disposing of CRP.PD.No.707/2018 has held that the petitioner is neither a proper or a necessary party ; but has given liberty to the petitioner/party-in-person to assist the Corporation of Chennai in defence of the suit.
(2) Mr.P.Karl Marx, appearing in person, would claim that he should be allowed to let in evidence. I do not think he can be allowed to let in evidence since this Court had already come to the conclusion that the 2/5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRP.PD.No.3064/2021 petitioner is neither a necessary nor a proper party to the suit. The petitioner/party-in-person would submit that he has sought for review of the order in CRP.PD.No.707/2018 and the same is pending.
(3) It is open to him to move the review and seek any order as he pleases in the review. The Trial Court was justified in rejecting his application seeking permission for assistance as the same has already been granted.
(4) Hence, I do not see any merit in the revision. The Civil Revision fails and it is accordingly dismissed. No costs.
20.01.2022
AP
Internet : Yes
Index : No
Speaking order: Yes
3/5
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRP.PD.No.3064/2021 To
1.The I Assistant Judge City Civil Court, Chennai.
2.The Commissioner Corporation of Chennai Rippon Building, Chennai 600 003.
3.The Executive Engineer, Corporation of Chennai Zone IX, Lake Area Nungambakkam, Chennai 600 034.
4/5https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRP.PD.No.3064/2021 R.SUBRAMANIAN, J.
AP CRP.PD.No.3064/2021 20.01.2022 5/5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis