Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 583 (MAD)

K. Kulanthaivel Pillai v. Pasumponthevar

2013-01-28

G.RAJASURIA

body2013
JUDGMENT 1. This Civil Revision Petition has been filed to get set aside the Memorandum in Na.Ka.No.19806/2012/B4 dated 03.10.2012 issued by the District Revenue Officer, Dindigul. 2. Heard both sides. 3. At the hearing, the learned Counsel for the revision petitioner would submit that the revision petitioner namely K.Kulanthaivel Pillai died. 4. Whereas the learned Counsel for the respondent would submit that this Court might take that this Civil Revision Petition has become infructuous because this Civil Revision Petition itself has been focussed only as against the requisition dated 03.10.2012 issued by the District Revenue Officer, Dindigul, to the deceased revision petitioner for furnishing the particulars about the pending of any litigation; in fact, the said K.Kulanthaivel Pillai was not a party in any litigation in connection with the enquiry undertaken by the District Revenue Officer. 5. There is no knowing of the fact as to how this Civil Revision Petition could be focussed at all under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 6. A perusal of the records would reveal that a civil suit in O.S.No.398 of 2009 is pending on the file of the Additional District Munsif, Dindigul, between Balsamythevar and another, and Balu and three others. 7. The learned Counsel for the revision petitioner would submit that the said K.Kulanthaivel Pillai happened to be the father of Balu, the first defendant in the said suit and since his client received the notice, he filed this revision for quashing the same on the ground that when the civil suit is pending, the District Revenue Officer was not expected to send such notice. 8. At this juncture, I would like to point out that as against the requisition send by the District Revenue Officer, as under: “Tamil” No revision would lie and as such, this Civil Revision Petition is a misconceived one and the said K.Kulanthaivel Pillai, the revision petitioner herein also died and he was not a party in any litigation and there is no liability for the said K.Kulanthaivel Pillai to respond to that notice also. 9. In such a case, absolutely, there is no rhyme or reason in keeping in this Civil Revision Petition pending. 10. Accordingly, this Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition is dismissed. No costs.