Back
R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO
Chukka Ramalakshmi – Appellant
Versus
Bobbili Anteravedi – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. suit filed for partition by petitioners. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. petitioners argue for maintainability of revision. (Para 4 , 5) |
| 3. procedure for returning plaint established. (Para 6 , 8 , 10) |
| 4. return of plaint precludes appeal. (Para 7 , 9 , 12) |
| 5. (Para 13 , 14) |
| 6. civil revision petition returned allowing other remedies. (Para 15) |
ORDER :
R. Raghunandan Rao, J.
1. The petitioners herein had filed OS No. 33 of 2010 before the learned Senior Civil Judge, Tadepalligudem for partition of the plaint scheduled property.
2. The defendants in the suit had appeared and filed their written statement and Trial had been conducted. After the completion of the Trial, the Trial Court had taken a view that the Suit is beyond the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Court and returned the plaint to the petitioners.
3. Aggrieved by the said return of plaint, the petitioners have approached this Court by way of the present revision petition. At that stage, the Registry had taken an objection that a revision would not be maintainable as an appeal had been provided under Order XLIII Rule 1 of C.P.C.
4. The petitioners had sought the matter to be placed before the Court for a hearing on the question
The main legal point established in the judgment is that a Civil Revision Petition is not maintainable against an order declining leave to defend a suit under Order 37 of C.P.C., and only a regular a....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that a revision under Article 227 of the Constitution of India may not be maintainable if the petitioner has an alternative remedy of filing an app....
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
