Petitioner Vs. Respondent

Petitioner vs Respondent

Type Court Judgment Court Chennai Decided Apr 21, 2016

~1 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1191215

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/1191215
Court: Chennai High Court
Judge: The Honourable Dr.(Mrs.) Justice S. Vimala
Decided On: Apr 21, 2016
Case Number: CRP (NPD) No. 745 of 1991
Subject: Tenancy

Case Summary

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

Tenancy

Key legal issue: Tenancy

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Petitioner

Respondent

Excerpt

1. this matter has been listed today under the caption for being mentioned at the instance of the learned counsel for the respondent/landlord. 2. the learned counsel for the respondent/landlord submitted that after the death of the petitioner v.g.naidu @ govindasamy naidu, the legal representatives of the petitioner were brought on record and mistakenly, the name of the legal representatives were omitted to be mentioned in the reconstituted grounds of revision, but, by mistake, the name of the deceased alone was printed and therefore, this mistake has to be rectified. the learned counsel has also filed a memo to that effect. 3. this memo ought to have been filed by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner. however, on notice, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner has made an endorsement of 'no objection' for recording the names of the legal representatives in the judgment. 4. accordingly, this memo is recorded and the registry is directed to carry out necessary amendments in the court bundle and judgment and issue corrected copy of the judgment to the concerned.

Full Judgment

1. This matter has been listed today under the caption For Being Mentioned at the instance of the learned counsel for the respondent/landlord.

2. The learned counsel for the respondent/landlord submitted that after the death of the petitioner V.G.Naidu @ Govindasamy Naidu, the legal representatives of the petitioner were brought on record and mistakenly, the name of the legal representatives were omitted to be mentioned in the reconstituted grounds of revision, but, by mistake, the name of the deceased alone was printed and therefore, this mistake has to be rectified. The learned counsel has also filed a memo to that effect.

3. This memo ought to have been filed by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner. However, on notice, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner has made an endorsement of 'no objection' for recording the names of the legal representatives in the Judgment.

4. Accordingly, this memo is recorded and the Registry is directed to carry out necessary amendments in the Court bundle and Judgment and issue corrected copy of the Judgment to the concerned.

Same Court & Year Chennai · 2016 Same Parties Petitioner vs Respondent Same Subject Tenancy Same Judge The Honourable Dr.(Mrs.) Justice S. Vimala