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

1989 Supreme(AP) 522

G.RADHA KRISHNA RAO
H. R. Shenoy – Appellant
Versus
M. Murali Krishna – Respondent


G. RADHAKRISHNA RAO, J.

( 1 ) THE short question that falls for consideration in this revision petition is whether the revision petition as filed under Section 115 C. P. C. is maintainable.

( 2 ) THE petitioners who are some of the defendants in O. S. No. 3473 of 1989 on the file of the X Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, filed the revision petition in the first instance under Article 227 of the constitution of India. The Registry of the High Court took an objection that the revision under Article 227 of the Constitution is not maintainable. Hence they converted it to one under Section 115 C. P. C.

( 3 ) THE brief facts with regard to the initiation of the proceedings and the orders passed thereon which are relevant factors for determining the maintainability of the revision petition are as follows ; the plaintiffs who are the members of the Syndicate Bank Officers association, filed a representative suit, with the prior permission of the court, for a declaration that some of the actions specified in the plaint are illegal and ultra vires and for a perpetual injunction and also for accounting. To safeguard the funds from devastation or flittering away the funds of the A












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