K.LOGESHKUMAR vs N. Ravichandran (Died)

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(Mad) 5665

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
P.B.BALAJI
K.LOGESHKUMAR – Appellant
Versus
N. Ravichandran (Died) – Respondent

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr.N.Manoharan
For the Respondent: Mr.P.Valliappan, Mr.K.S.Karthik Raja Mr.V.P.Senguttuvel, Mr.K.R.Nishanth

ORDER :

P.B. BALAJI, J.

1. The revision petitioner is the defendant in suit for specific performance in O.S. No.75 of 2013 on the file of the learned II Additional District and Sessions Court, Thiruppur. The revision petitioner challenges the exparte decree passed in the said suit on 26.09.2013, invoking the extraordinary revisional powers available in this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

2. I have heard Mr.N.Manoharan, learned counsel for the revision petitioner and Mr.P.Valliappan, learned Senior Counsel for Mr.K.S.Karthik Raja. learned counsel for the respondents 2 and 3 and Mr.V.P.Senguttuvel, learned Senior Counsel for Mr.K.R.Nishanth, learned counsel for the respondents 4 and 5. The first respondent in the revision is no more and his heirs have already been impleaded, pending the revision.

3. Mr.N.Manoharan, learned counsel for the revision petitioner inviting my attention to the judgment passed in O.S. No.75 of 2013 would submit that the Trial Court has not followed the mandate of the Order XX, Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, (in short 'CPC') and moreso, the suit being one for specific performance, the Trial Court ought to have given findings w

Click Here to Read the rest of this document