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

2005 Supreme(AP) 934

G.CHANDRAIAH
Rv. D. D. Nirmal Kumar – Appellant
Versus
Rv. G. Sunder Sekhar, Puttur, Chittoor Dt. – Respondent


C O M M O N O R D E R

Heard both the sides.

2. Since the issue involved in all the three revisions is connected and the result in C.R. P. No.2434/2005 depends on the other two revisions, they are being disposed of by this common order.

3. Aggrieved by the common order dated 22.12.2004 passed by the court of Principal District Judge, Kadapa in Check Slip Nos.1 and 2 of 2004, C.R.P.No.2434/2005 is filed and the other two revisions are filed aggrieved by the order of the court below in refusing to extend further time for payment of court fee.

4. By the impugned order, the court below directed the plaintiffs to pay the court fee separately under Section 24(d) of the A. P. Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1956 (for short ‘the Act’) for the relief of declaration of the sale deeds dated 17.1.2004 executed by defendants 3 and 5 in favour of defendants 10 to 16 as null and void and further directed the plaintiffs to pay the court fees separately for two reliefs under Section 26 i.e. for the relief of permanent injunction against 1 to 9 restraining them from interfering with the management and administration of South Andhra Luthern Church; and to grant injunction ag


































































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