SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2011 Supreme(Mad) 1155

2011 (2) LW 858
High Court of Judicature at Madras
K. VENKATARAMAN
M. Mariyam Ul Asia & Others
Versus
The Tamil Nadu Muslim Women's Education and Welfare Association, Rep. By its President Asia Begum, Tiruppur District
CRP.[PD] No.856 of 2011
Decided on : 03-03-2011

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioners:M. Ramalingam, Advocate. For the Respondent:------.

The court has the authority to direct early disposal of pending matters if it deems that no prejudice would be caused to the other party.

Headnote:

early disposal - civil revision petition - The court directed the District Munsif to dispose of the pending I.A.No.1250 of 2009 in O.S.No.221 of 2009 within one month, citing a previous judgment where it was held that no prejudice would be caused to the other side by such an order.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioners sought early disposal of a pending I.A.No.1250 of 2009 in O.S.No.221 of 2009, citing endless adjournments.

Finding of the Court:

The court allowed the civil revision petition and directed the District Munsif to dispose of the said I.A.No.1250 of 2009 in O.S.No.221 of 2009 within one month.

Issues: Delay in disposal of the I.A. and the petitioners' request for early disposal.

Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was influenced by the view that no prejudice would be caused to the other side by ordering early disposal, as established in a previous judgment.

Final Decision: The civil revision petition was allowed, and the District Munsif was directed to dispose of the pending I.A.No.1250 of 2009 in O.S.No.221 of 2009 within one month.

Judgment :-

1. The petitioners have come up with the present civil revision petition seeking early disposal of I.A.No.1250 of 2009 in O.S.No.221 of 2009 pending on the file of the District Munsif Court, Dharapuram.

2. It is stated in this revision that though the said I.A. was filed in the year 2009, it is endlessly adjourned and hence, the petitioners have come up with the present civil revision petition.

3. Though normally notice has to be ordered to the other side before making order in this revision, in the present case on hand, I am not inclined to order notice to the other side, in view of the limited order to be passed hereunder. That apart, I am of the view that no prejudice will be caused to the other side, if such an order is passed. The said view was taken by this court in the Judgment reported in 2005-4-L.W. 45, THE TAMILNADU INDUSTRIAL INVESTMENT CORPORATION LIMITED V. M.S.GOPAL, PROPRIETOR, M/S.SUKI GARMENTS AND THREE OTHERS. Considering the said aspect, the Learned District Munsif, Dharapuram is directed to dispose of the said I.A.No.1250 of 2009 in O.S.No.221 of 2009, at the earliest in any event within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

4. In the result, the civil revision petition is allowed. No costs.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top