SUBHA Vs. J P RAJARAJAN IMMANUVEL BALASINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The respondent in the Civil Revision Petition, in C.R.P.(PD)No.3631 of 2009, is the petitioner in the present Review Application.

(2.) The petitioner in the Civil Revision Petition had filed the said Petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, praying that this Court may be pleased to direct the II Additional Family Court, Chennai to dispose of I.D.O.P.No.2227 of 2006, within a specific time, as fixed by this Court. However, an oral plea had been made by the learned counsel for the respondent to utilise the video conferencing facility in the II Additional Family Court, Chennai, to conduct the proceedings in I.D.O.P.Nos. 2227 and 2518 of 2006.

(3.) This Court had passed an order, dated 26.03.2010, in C.R.P.(PD)No.3631 of 2009, directing the II Additional Family Court, Chennai, to hear and dispose of I.D.O.P.Nos.2227 and 2518 of 2006, on merits and in accordance with law, within period of six months, from the date of the receipt of a copy of the said order. However, the request made on behalf of the respondent in the Civil Revision Petition, to avail the video conferencing facility had been rejected, since, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent had not been in a position to show that such a facility was available in the II Additional Family Court, Chennai, at that stage. However, in the present review petition it is brought to the notice of this court, by both the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the petitioner, as well as respondent, that video conferencing facility has been available in the II Additional Family Court, Chennai, from 18.01.2007, onwards.