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

1992 Supreme(AP) 424

A.VENKATARAMI REDDY
Racharla Ramarao – Appellant
Versus
V. Venkateswarulu – Respondent


A. VENKATARAMI REDDY, J.

( 1 ) THE defendant in the suit O. S. No. 123 of 1987 on the file of the II Additional subordinate Judge, Warangal is the petitioner in this C. R. P.

( 2 ) AN ex parte decree was passed on 24-7-89. On coming to know of theex parte decree the petitioner herein filed I. A. No. 618/89 under Or. 9, Rule 13 CPC for setting aside the ex parte decree. The said application was dismissed by the learned II Additional Subordinate Judge, Warangal. Aggrieved by the same the defendant-petitioner herein preferred an appeal C. M. A. No. 22/90 to the additional District Judge, Warangal. The lower appellate court found that the suit summons were not served on the defendant. It therefore set aside the ex parte decree passed against the defendant, but imposed a condition mat the defendant shall deposit the costs of Rs. 2,705/- and also a sum of Rs. 15,000/- towards suit amount on or before 3-12-90. Aggrieved by the imposition of the condition of depositing Rs. 15,000/- only, the above C. R. P. is filed.

( 3 ) IT is submitted by Mr. V. S. R. Anjaneyulu, learned counsel for the petitioner that as the lower appellate court was satisfied mat the suit summons were not served, it is





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