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

2011 Supreme(AP) 619

N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO
Maddineni Venkateswarlu – Appellant
Versus
Maddineni Rajamma @ Rajeswari – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioners:T.S. Anand, Advocate.
For the Respondents:T. Sreedhar, Advocate.

Judgment :

1. This revision is filed against the order dated 31.5.2008 passed in I.A. No.1931 of 2004 in A.S. No. of 2004 on the file of the District Judge, Ongole, which is an application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act to condone the delay of 679 days in filing the appeal.

2. The suit O.S. No.106 of 1998 was filed for recovery of possession of the schedule property and for injunction by the first respondent and the petitioners herein are the defendants. The defendants filed a written statement contesting the suit. Since the first petitioner became mad and the second petitioner went to Hyderabad and he came to know on enquiry that an ex parte decree was passed on 26.3.2002, they filed an application on 14.8.2002 for condonation of delay of 111 days in filing the petition to set aside the ex parte decree and the same was dismissed on 02.7.2003. Against that order, C.R.P. No.6752 of 2003 was filed and it was also dismissed. Therefore, the regular appeal was filed after obtaining certified copies. After the dismissal of the C.R.P. on 02.4.2004 and consequently there is a delay of 679 days in filing the appeal. The respondents filed a counter contending that the first petit










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