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

1993 Supreme(AP) 385

S.PARVATHA RAO
Sriramula Ramachandram – Appellant
Versus
Sriramula Bhoodamma – Respondent


S. PARVATHA RAO, J.

( 1 ) THE petitioners question the order of the learned District Munsif at Karimanagar in I. A. No. 112 of 1989 in I. A. No. 410of 1988 in O. S. No. 684 of 1982 dated 8-8-1990 dismissing the said application made under O. 1, R. 10 of the Civil Procedure Code for impleading them as respondents 8 to 14 in the above case . It is important to note that the said I. A. No. 112 of 1989 was preferred by the petitioners themselves because the order of the learned District Munsif discloses some confusion regarding the said fact.

( 2 ) THE brief facts of the case as could be culled out from the order of the learned District Munsif are as follows:-- Respondents 1 and 2 herein laid O. S. No. 684 of 1982 for partition. The 1st defendant in the said suit one Durgaiah died. Petitioners herein are his legal representatives. The 2nd plaintiff in the suit filed I. A. No. 191 of 1984 under R. 4 of 0. 22 of the Civil Procedure Code on 24-10-1983 for bringing on record the petitioners herein as the legal representatives of the deceased 1st defendant and the said application was allowed by the learned District Munsif on 3-12-1984. According to the petitioners herein no notice was serv











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