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

2008 Supreme(AP) 68

N.V.RAMANA
Shetty Chandra Shekar – Appellant
Versus
Neeti Ramulu – Respondent


Advocates:
Advocate appeared:
Counsel appeared :P. Narahati Babu, Counsel for the Petitioners; K Mahipathy Rao, Counsel for the Respondents.

ORDER :-Aggrieved by the order dated 6.8.2007, passed by the Junior Civil Judge, Kodangal, Mahabubnagar District, allowing the petition in I.A. No.54 of 2007 in I.A. No.187 of 2006 in O.S. No.62 of 2006, filed by the respondents under Order XIX Rule 2 C.P.C. for the attendance of the deponent for cross-examination on his own affidavit, the petitioners filed this C.R.P.

2. The petitioners are the plaintiffs while the respondents are the defendants. It is the contention of the petitioners-plaintiffs that the Court below committed an error in allowing the present petition in I.A. No.54 of 2007 filed by the respondents defendants, and as such, it is liable to be set aside; while it is the contention of the respondents-defendants that the Court below in exercise of its discretion under Order XIX Rule 2 C.P.C. has rightly allowed the I.A., the same being valid and in accordance with law, no interference is called for therewith, and the C.R.P. be dismissed.

3. Before adverting to the legal principle involved in this case, for better appreciation and adjudication of the matter in dispute, it is just and necessary, to refer to the relevant facts.

4. The present petition in I.A. No. 54 of 2007












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