Back
C. KUMARAPPAN
Arulmigu Kalahatheeswarar Devasthanam, Represented through its Executive Officer – Appellant
Versus
S. Rathinam – Respondent
JUDGMENT
(Prayer: Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, against the fair and decreetal Order dated 26.02.2018 passed in I.A.No.2157 of 2017 in O.S.No.643 of 2012 on the file of the Principal District Munsif Court, Dindigul.)
1. The instant Civil Revision Petition has been filed against the order passed in I.A.No.2157 of 2017 in an application filed under Order VIII Rule 1A(3) of C.P.C.
2. The petitioner herein is the second defendant. The first respondent is the plaintiff and the second respondent is the first defendant before the Court below.
3. The short relief the petitioner wanted is that, they want to file two documents, namely, the certified copy of the decree and judgment in A.S.No.7 of 2016 on the file of the Principal Sub Court, Dindigul. However, the leave was rejected by the Court below. Aggrieved with the above said order, the petitioner is before this Court.
4. I have gone through the papers. It is admitted by either side that the suit is at the stage of marking of documents on behalf of this petitioner. However, from the perusal of the impugned order, it appears that the Court below has gone into the merits of the matter and has n
Revision petition infructuous upon underlying suit withdrawal; no further adjudication required.
Settlement in underlying suit renders revision petition moot, warranting closure.
Revision petition becomes infructuous upon withdrawal of underlying suit.
Court permitted withdrawal of revision petition with no costs.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
