E. KRISHNAMMAL Vs. M. JAYANTHY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Civil Revision Petition is sought to be filed against the order of the learned 1st  Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai dated 29.06.2011 made in I.A.No.21504 of 2010.

(2.) THE arguments advanced by Mr.A.T.Jayaraman, learned counsel for the petitioners are heard. The grounds of revision and the materials produced in the form of typed -set of papers are also perused.

(3.) THE very array of parties will show how casually the litigation came to be instituted. One and the same person, namely the State is stated to be represented by the Sub -Registrar as well as the District Collector and it is projected as two different persons assigning two different ranks, namely Respondent No. 2 and Respondent No.3. Apart from that, an explanatory note to the name of the first petitioner Krishnammal, has been noted in bracket in the cause title, which reads "Late". When M.P.No.1 of 2013 filed under Order IV Rule 9(4) of the Appellate Side Rules to condone the delay of more than 677 days in representing the Civil Revision Petition was heard, it was represented that krishnammal was very much alive and only her husband Ettiappan was no more and that by mistake, instead of prefixing the term "late" to Ettiappan, it was suffixed to Krishnammal. Based on that representation alone the said miscellaneous petition came to be allowed.