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

2010 Supreme(AP) 754

GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA
Vadla Narasimhaiah – Appellant
Versus
Vadla Narasimhaiah – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioners:G. Madhusudhan Reddy, Advocate.
For the Respondents:T.V. Rajeevan, Advocate.

Judgment :

1. The respondent Nos.1 to 3 herein instituted a suit in O.S.No.24 of 2008 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Wanaparthi, for correction of entries in the revenue records. In that suit, the official respondents 4 and 5 herein are shown as defendants 6 and 7. The petitioners, who are defendants 1 to 5, filed written statement. On the basis of which, issues have been settled. When the trial is in progress and some witnesses have been examined, an application in I.A.No.176 of 2009 in O.S.No.24 of 2008 was filed by the petitioners under Order VII Rule 11 (a) and (d) of CPC stating that the plaint has to be rejected. The trial Court having heard both the counsel appearing on either side, vide its order dated 09-04-2009, while rejecting the contentions advanced by the learned counsel for the defendants, passed an order directing the plaintiffs to delete D-6 and D7 from the array of the suit. The order is questioned by the defendants 1 to 5 in this revision petition.

2. Sri G.Madhusudhan Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners, has mainly contended that the respondents 1 to 3 filed the suit suppressing so many facts, and in fact, there was prior litigation between the par





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