Ramanathan and Another Vs. Rengasamy and Others

Ramanathan and Another vs Rengasamy and Others

Type Court Judgment Court Chennai Madurai Decided Oct 20, 2016

~3 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1187752

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

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/1187752
Court: Chennai Madurai High Court
Judge: D. Krishnakumar
Decided On: Oct 20, 2016
Case Number: C.R.P(PD)(MD)No. 2111 of 2016
Subject: Land Acquisition

Case Summary

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

Land Acquisition

Key legal issue: Land Acquisition

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Ramanathan and Another

Respondent

Rengasamy and Others

Excerpt

.....petitioners from doing the thiruppani work and by judgement and decree, dated 31.3.2015, the suit was decreed in favour of the respondents herein. aggrieved by the same, the petitioners have preferred an appeal suit in a.s.no.19 of 2015 before the subordinate court, ramanathapuram. in the aforesaid appeal suit, the petitioners have also filed an application in i.a.no.100 of 2015 under order 41 rule 5 of civil procedure code to stay the operation of the lower court decree made in the main suit, till the disposal of the appeal suit and the respondents have also filed their counter statement. the aforesaid application is now pending before the subordinate court, ramanathapuram. in the aforesaid application, the petitioners have specifically pleaded that the petitioners were denied their participation in the temple renovation work. the petitioners were also ex-communicated from their participation in the temple renovation work. hence, there is an urgency to obtain urgent interim orders from the appellate court concerned. in such circumstances, the petitioners have filed the present civil revision petition for the relief stated supra. 3. in view of the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioners and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the matter and in the interest of justice, this court is inclined to pass the following order: 1. the sub-court,ramanathapuram is directed to dispose of i.a.no.100 of 2015 in a.s.no.19 of 2015, on merits and in accordance with law, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 2. thereafter, the appellate court is directed to dispose of the main appeal suit in a.s.no.19 of 2015, on merits and in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible. 4. with the above directions, the civil revision petition is disposed of. no costs.

Full Judgment

(Prayer: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to direct Subordinate Judge, Ramanathapuram to expedite the hearing in A.S.No.19 of 2015 and to dispose of the same within the time frame fixed by this Court.)

1. This revision has been filed seeking for a direction to the Subordinate Judge, Ramanathapuram to expedite the hearing in A.S.No.19 of 2015 and to dispose of the same within the time frame fixed by this Court.

2. According to the revision Petitioners, the respondents herein filed a suit in O.S.No.72 of 2009, before the District Munsif Court, Thiruvadanai, seeking permanent injunction not to disturb the revision petitioners from doing the Thiruppani Work and by judgement and decree, dated 31.3.2015, the suit was decreed in favour of the respondents herein. Aggrieved by the same, the Petitioners have preferred an appeal suit in A.S.No.19 of 2015 before the Subordinate Court, Ramanathapuram. In the aforesaid appeal suit, the Petitioners have also filed an application in I.A.No.100 of 2015 under Order 41 Rule 5 of Civil Procedure Code to stay the operation of the lower court decree made in the main suit, till the disposal of the appeal suit and the respondents have also filed their counter statement. The aforesaid application is now pending before the Subordinate Court, Ramanathapuram. In the aforesaid application, the Petitioners have specifically pleaded that the Petitioners were denied their participation in the temple renovation work. The Petitioners were also ex-communicated from their participation in the temple renovation work. Hence, there is an urgency to obtain urgent interim orders from the appellate Court concerned. In such circumstances, the Petitioners have filed the present Civil Revision Petition for the relief stated supra.

3. In view of the submission made by the learned counsel for the Petitioners and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the matter and in the interest of justice, this Court is inclined to pass the following Order:

1. The Sub-Court,Ramanathapuram is directed to dispose of I.A.No.100 of 2015 in A.S.No.19 of 2015, on merits and in accordance with law, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

2. Thereafter, the appellate Court is directed to dispose of the main appeal suit in A.S.No.19 of 2015, on merits and in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible.

4. With the above directions, the Civil Revision Petition is disposed of. No costs.

Same Court & Year Chennai Madurai · 2016 Same Parties Ramanathan and Another vs Rengasamy and Others Same Subject Land Acquisition Same Judge D. Krishnakumar