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

1997 Supreme(AP) 676

S.V.MARUTHI
Teluguntta Venkateswara Rao, T. Seetharamanujamma – Appellant
Versus
Teluguntta Sundara Satyanarayana – Respondent


S. V. MARUTHI, J.

( 1 ) THIS C. M. P. is filed on 21-4-1994 to bring on record the Legal representatives of the sole appellant who died on 26-1-1994. However, for some reason or the other the C. M. P. was not posted. Thereafter, the appeal came up for hearing before me and the same was allowed with costs on 25-9-1995. Though the appeal was allowed on 25-9-1995 either due to inadvertence or otherwise CMP No. 8332/94 filed on 21-4-1994 was not ordered. Hence, the present petition is brought before this Court for purpose of ordering.

( 2 ) THE Counsel for the petitioner brought to my notice the judgment of the Supreme Court in Jang Singm vs. Brij Lal wherein it was held that:"there is no higher principle for the guidance of the Court than the one that no act of Court should harm a litigant and it is the bounden duty of Courts to see that if a person is harmed by a mistake of the Court, he should be restored to the position he would have occupied but for that mistake. This is aptly summed up in the maxim: "actus curiae neminem gravabit. "counsel submitted that an act of Court shall prejudice no man relying on the following maxim "actus Curiae Neminem Gravabit" - An act of the Court shal




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