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

1997 Supreme(Kar) 55

CHIDANANDA ULLAL
P. VASANTM – Appellant
Versus
VIMALA MARTIN – Respondent


Advocates:
B.Vishwanath Bandarkar, C.S.PRASANNA, KRISHNAPPA KARANDUR

CHIDANANDA ULLAL, J.

( 1 ) THE appeal is admitted.

( 2 ) THE instant appeal is filed against the order on la. no. Iv dated 10-2-1996 in o. s. No. 1949 of 1994 Passed by the v Additional City Civil Judge (c. c. h. No. 13) Bangalore, whereby the said judge was pleased to allow the said la. And further pleased to reject the plaint under order 7, Rule ll (d) of Civil Procedure Code.

( 3 ) THE matter was originally listed for admission. However, in view of the fact that parties are represented, by consent of parties, the matter was taken up for final disposal.

( 4 ) I heard the learned counsel Sri b. Vishwanath bhandarkar appearing for the appellant, Sri krishnappa, learned counsel appearing for respondent 1 and the learned counsel Sri c. s. prasanna kumar for kumar and kumar, appearing for the respondent 2. I have also perused the records, having called for from the Court of v Additional City Civil Judge (c. c. h. No. 13), Bangalore (hereinafter referred to as 'city civil judge' ).

( 5 ) THE facts in brief of the case are as follows: that the appellant/plaintiff had filed the suit in question before the city civil judge to enforce the agreement for specific performance of contract dated
























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