Petitioner Vs. Respondent

Petitioner vs Respondent

Type Court Judgment Court Chennai Madurai Decided Aug 18, 2016

~1 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1188902

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/1188902
Court: Chennai Madurai High Court
Judge: M. Venugopal
Decided On: Aug 18, 2016
Case Number: W.P (MD) No. 11569 of 2016
Subject: Miscellaneous

Case Summary

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

Miscellaneous

Key legal issue: Miscellaneous

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Petitioner

Respondent

Excerpt

m. venugopal, j. 1. today, this matter has been listed before this court, at the instance of the learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. it transpires at paragraph 10 of the order, dated 29.6.2016 in w.p(md)no.11569 of 2016 passed by this court, inadvertently, it was mentioned as 'third respondent'. the proper respondent is only the fourth respondent/the tahsildar,thirumayam, pudukkottai district. as such, registry is directed to incorporate the name of the fourth respondent at para no.10 instead of third respondent,wherever it appears and to issue a fresh order copy to the parties, free of cost.

Full Judgment

M. Venugopal, J.

1. Today, this matter has been listed before this Court, at the instance of the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner.

2. It transpires at paragraph 10 of the order, dated 29.6.2016 in W.P(MD)No.11569 of 2016 passed by this Court, inadvertently, it was mentioned as 'Third Respondent'. The proper Respondent is only the Fourth Respondent/The Tahsildar,Thirumayam, Pudukkottai District. As such, Registry is directed to incorporate the name of the Fourth Respondent at para No.10 instead of Third Respondent,wherever it appears and to issue a fresh order copy to the parties, free of cost.

Same Court & Year Chennai Madurai · 2016 Same Parties Petitioner vs Respondent Same Subject Miscellaneous Same Judge M. Venugopal