SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

2004 Supreme(SC) 1333

ARIJIT PASAYAT, C.K.THAKKER
Mathakala Krishnaish – Appellant
Versus
V. Rajagopal – Respondent


JUDGMENT

Arijit Pasayat, J.-Leave granted.

2. By the impugned judgment a learned Single Judge of the Andhra Pradesh High Court reversed the Appellate Court s judgment and decree passed by learned IInd Additional District Judge, Nellore. The present respondent was the plaintiff in the original suit which was on the file of Ist Additional District Munsif Court, Nellore. He was the appellant before the High Court. Though the trial Court had decided in favour of the plaintiff (respondent herein), as noted above the first Appellate Court reversed the judgment and decree of the trial Court and the suit filed by the plaintiff was dismissed. The plaintiff filed Second Appeal before the High Court which was disposed of by the impugned judgment. The High Court directed restoration of the judgment and decree of the trial Court and set aside the judment and decree of the first Appellate Court.

3. Though many points were urged in support of the appeal, the pivotal plea was that the High Court could not have interfered with the judgment and decree of the first Appellate Court without framing a substantial question of law as enjoined by Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (in short the




















Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top