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

2005 Supreme(AP) 1118

T.CH.SURYA RAO
H. C. Upadhya – Appellant
Versus
A. R. Rustom Fram – Respondent


( 1 ) THE instant revision petition is directed against the order dated 21-7-2004 passed by the learned III Junior Civil Judge, city Civil Court, Hyderabad, in LA. No. 114 of 2004 in O. S. No. 4089 of 2003.

( 2 ) AT the stage of admission, the learned Counsel appearing for the respondents had taken notice and addressed arguments for the final disposal of the revision petition.

( 3 ) THE revision petitioner is the defendant in the suit. The respondents filed the suit for recovery of possession. The suit was decreed ex parte. The petitioner, therefore, filed I. A. No. 1171 of 2003 seeking to set aside the ex parte decree under order 9 Rule 13 of the Code of Civil procedure (for brevity the Code ). After having heard on either side, the Court below allowed that application on 21-1-2004 on the condition of the petitioner paying a sum of Rs. 1,000/- towards costs within 8 days from the date of that order. On the premise that on account of the sad demise of the grandmother of the petitioner s Counsel, the Counsel could not deposit the amount within the time and that despite the tragedy the Counsel rushed to the Court and offered the amount of Rs. 1,000/- to the Counsel of his adversary














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