Petitioner Vs. Respondent - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citationsooperkanoon.com/1190046
SubjectTrusts and Societies
CourtChennai Madurai High Court
Decided OnJul-04-2016
Case NumberW.P.(MD).No. 11756 of 2016
JudgeM. Venugopal
AppellantPetitioner
RespondentRespondent
Excerpt:
m. venugopal, j. 1. heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. a cursory perusal of the averments of the affidavit of the writ petition at paragraph no.4, latently and patently indicates that in adangal column, it is inadvertently mentioned that as 'thirumarainathar 5th mandagapadi trustee muthuraman @ manickam chetty-1, t.lakshmi-2' .as a matter of fact, these two persons mentioned in paragraph no.4 of the affidavit of the writ petition have not been arrayed as parties to the writ petition. hence, the petitioner is directed to implead these two persons as respondents to the writ petition. in this regard, the petitioner is granted one week's time. 3. the registry is directed to list the matter on 12.07.2016.
Judgment:

M. Venugopal, J.

1. Heard the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner.

2. A cursory perusal of the averments of the affidavit of the writ petition at paragraph No.4, latently and patently indicates that in adangal column, it is inadvertently mentioned that as 'Thirumarainathar 5th Mandagapadi Trustee Muthuraman @ Manickam Chetty-1, T.Lakshmi-2' .As a matter of fact, these two persons mentioned in paragraph No.4 of the affidavit of the writ petition have not been arrayed as parties to the writ petition. Hence, the petitioner is directed to implead these two persons as respondents to the writ petition. In this regard, the petitioner is granted one week's time.

3. The Registry is directed to list the matter on 12.07.2016.