Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 20620
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
V.LAKSHMINARAYANAN, J
Thirumalaikumar – Appellant
Versus
Peruma represented by her power agent Premkumar. – Respondent
C.R.P(MD)Nos.697 and 698 of 2023|C.M.P(MD)No.3245 of 2023
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr.A.Balakrishnan
For the Respondents: Mr.D.Nallathambi
Civil Revision Petitions dismissed as infructuous due to prior decree; petitioner may invoke procedural grounds if aggrieved.
Headnote:The case involved Civil Revision Petitions under Article 227 of the Constitution concerning orders made in a long-standing suit. The court recognized that the suit had been decreed, leaving no revival necessary for the petition. Upon consideration, the petitions were dismissed as infructuous. The court concluded that the petitioner has the liberty to invoke relevant provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure if aggrieved by the orders.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. revision petitioner acknowledges decree rendered. (Para 1) |
| 2. court dismisses petitions as infructuous. (Para 2) |
COMMON ORDER
Mr.D.Nallathambi, learned counsel representing the revision petitioner states that the suit itself has been decreed on 29.8.2025. As the suit itself has been decreed, there is nothing for this Court to revive. In case, the Petitioner is still aggrieved of the order impugned in this revision, it is open to the Civil Revision Petitioner to make it as a ground invoking Section 105(1) of Code of Civil Procedure .
2.With the above liberty, these Civil Revision Petitions are dismissed as infructuous. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous petition is closed.
