Pachiammal vs Rajendran - 2026 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 31405

Headnote Court Copy Facts Arguments Court observation Judicial Analysis Case Map Category Hierarchy Table of Content

2026 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 31405

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
K.KUMARESH BABU, J
Pachiammal – Appellant
Versus
Rajendran – Respondent
CRP No. 2862 of 2017|CMP Nos. 13484 of 2017 & 9874 of 2023

Important Points

Dismissal of underlying suit for default renders dependent revision petitions infructuous.

Subject

Civil - Revision Petition

Act Referred

Constitution of India: Article 227

Headnote

Under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, revision petitions challenged interlocutory orders in pending suits O.S. No.29/2006 and O.S. No.105/2005. Essential facts involved dismissal for default of O.S. No.105/2005 while O.S. No.29/2006 remained pending; revision in latter sought stay based on former. Court found prayers infructuous upon dismissal of lead suit. Issues framed around viability of stay prayers post-dismissal of underlying suit. Ratio: Dismissal for default renders dependent reliefs moot, warranting recall of prior orders and dismissal of revisions without costs. Both Civil Revision Petitions dismissed as infructuous; connected miscellaneous petitions closed.

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr.T.Sai Krishnan, Mr.T.Saikrishnan, Mr.Sai Krishnan
For the Respondents: Mr.J.Jawahar (R1)

Table of Content
1. petitioner's submission on suit dismissal renders prayers infructuous. (Para 2)
2. recall prior order; dismiss revisions as infructuous. (Para 3)

C O M M O N O R D E R

The matters have been listed under the caption “For Being Mentioned”.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that only the suit in O.S.No.105 of 2005 had been dismissed for default and the suit in O.S.No.29 of 2006 is still pending consideration before the Court. The revision in O.S.No.29 of 2006 is for grant of stay of the suit pending trial in O.S.No.105 of 2005. As the suit in O.S.No.105 of 2005 had been dismissed for default, the prayer in these revisions had also become infructuous.

3. Recording the said statement made by the learned counsel for the petitioners, the order dated 11.03.2026 stands recalled and the following order is passed:

“In view of the dismissal of the suit in O.S.No.105 of 2005, the order passed by this Court on 11.03.2026 is recalled and the prayer sought for in the revision petitions has become infructuous. Accordingly, both the Civil Revision Petitions stand dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.”