Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2001 DIGILAW 968 (MAD)

Togo Mukherjee v. Sapna Mukherjee

2001-08-28

A.RAMAMURTHI

body2001
Judgment :- 1. Heard. 2. This Civil Revision Petition is filed aggrieved against the orders passed in E.A. No. 21 of 1999 in E.P.6 of 1992 on the file of Family Court, Pondicherry. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has stated that E.A. No. 20/99 was filed to implead one Ramalingam as second respondent and E.A. No. 21/99 was filed to grant interim injunction against him. 4. The learned counsel for the respondent has stated that these two applications E.A. Nos. 20 and 21 of 1999 were not pressed even in the trial Court and as such nothing survives in the revision petition. The same is also admitted by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner. However, she has stated that E.A. No. 33 of 1999 has been filed to implead one Revathy as third respondent and the said application is pending since 2.12.1999 without any progress. 5. A perusal of the diary extract revealed the pathetic condition of the parties in appearing before the Family Court without any progress. The learned counsel also stated that there is a practice prevailing in all the Family Courts when both the parties are present, they are directed to take notice by registered post. This would cause inconvenience and also expenses for the parties. When the parties to the case are appearing before the Court, it is nothing but proper to give notice to the parties directly by the Court itself instead of directing them to take notice by registered post etc and cause inconvenience. Hence, I am of the view that suitable directions have to be given to all the Family Courts. 6. In so far as this case is concerned, the Family Court, Pondicherry is directed to dispose of E.A. No. 33 of 1999 within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order or on production of the copy of the same by either of the parties. 7. The revision petition is ordered accordingly. No costs. C.M.P. No. 7433 of 2001 is closed. Note to Office: — 1. The registry is directed to circulate to all the Family Courts concerned after getting orders from the Honourable Chief Justice. The Family Courts should not insist the parties to take notice by registered post when all the parties are before the Court and appearing on each hearing date. 2. Note to Office: — 1. The registry is directed to circulate to all the Family Courts concerned after getting orders from the Honourable Chief Justice. The Family Courts should not insist the parties to take notice by registered post when all the parties are before the Court and appearing on each hearing date. 2. Whenever any counsel files an application seeking assistance to any of the parties they should be permitted and suitable orders also be passed in the applications and the practice of not passing of any order and indirectly allowing them to appear cannot be appreciated. 3. It is further represented that the Family Courts insisted copy applications should be signed only by parties and it is not necessary. If the Court permitted the counsel to assist the party along with vakalath, then the Court can very well permit the counsel itself to file the copy application.