Skip to content
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.

R.Parvathi Vs. V.Mohan

R.Parvathi vs V.Mohan

Type Court Judgment Court Chennai Decided Jul 22, 2013
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1167491

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
Chennai High Court
Judge
Decided On
Subject
Education

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Education

Key legal issue
Education

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

R.Parvathi

Respondent

V.Mohan

Excerpt

in the high court of judicature at madras dated : 22.07.2013 coram the honourable mr.justice k.ravichandrabaabu c.r.p.no.2156 of 2013 r.parvathi .petitioner -versus 1. v.mohan 2. the executive officer, anandapuram town panchayat, gingee taluk, villupuram district.respondents prayer : civil revision petition is filed under section 115 of civil procedure code against the order dated 28.03.2012 made in i.a.no.486 of 2012 in i.a.no.2125 of 2011 in o.s.no.291 of 2009 on the file of the principal district munsif, gingee. for petitioner : mr.v.bhiman order this civil revision petition is filed against the order refusing an adjournment. 2.heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. 3.a perusal of the impugned order dated 28.03.2012 shows that the court below has refused to adjourn the case on the reason that the petitioner is trying to drag on the proceedings. whether the petitioner is trying to drag on the proceedings or not, the fact remains that such refusal to grant adjournment was made by the court below as early as on 28.03.2012. now today the civil revision petition is brought for admission challenging that order nearly after 1 year and 4 months. the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is not in a position to say what transpired thereafter. needless to say that granting of an adjournment is a matter of discretion of the court and not as a matter of right of the parties. when a court has refused to grant adjournment such order, in the absence of establishing any perversity, cannot be interfered with especially when it is an order passed by exercising discretion. accordingly, i find no merits in this civil revision petition and the same is liable to be dismissed. 4.with these observations, the civil revision petition is dismissed. no costs. cse to 1. the executive officer, anandapuram town panchayat, gingee taluk, villupuram district. 2. the principal district munsif gingee

Full Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS Dated : 22.07.2013 Coram THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.RAVICHANDRABAABU C.R.P.No.2156 of 2013 R.Parvathi .Petitioner -versus 1.

V.Mohan 2.

The Executive Officer, Anandapuram Town Panchayat, Gingee Taluk, Villupuram District.Respondents Prayer : Civil Revision Petition is filed under Section 115 of Civil Procedure Code against the order dated 28.03.2012 made in I.A.No.486 of 2012 in I.A.No.2125 of 2011 in O.S.No.291 of 2009 on the file of the Principal District Munsif, Gingee.

For Petitioner : Mr.V.Bhiman ORDER

This Civil Revision Petition is filed against the order refusing an adjournment.

2.Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner.

3.A perusal of the impugned order dated 28.03.2012 shows that the Court below has refused to adjourn the case on the reason that the petitioner is trying to drag on the proceedings.

Whether the petitioner is trying to drag on the proceedings or not, the fact remains that such refusal to grant adjournment was made by the Court below as early as on 28.03.2012.

Now today the Civil Revision Petition is brought for admission challenging that order nearly after 1 year and 4 months.

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is not in a position to say what transpired thereafter.

Needless to say that granting of an adjournment is a matter of discretion of the Court and not as a matter of right of the parties.

When a Court has refused to grant adjournment such order, in the absence of establishing any perversity, cannot be interfered with especially when it is an order passed by exercising discretion.

Accordingly, I find no merits in this Civil Revision Petition and the same is liable to be dismissed.

4.With these observations, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed.

No costs.

cse To 1.

The Executive Officer, Anandapuram Town Panchayat, Gingee Taluk, Villupuram District.

2.

The Principal District Munsif Gingee

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial