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

1988 Supreme(Ker) 74

THOMAS
SUDHAKARAN – Appellant
Versus
THANKAMMA – Respondent


Judgment :-

1. Petitioner, who is the third defendant in a suit for partition, has filed an appeal before the District Court against the final decree passed in the suit. He also filed an interlocutory application for stay of execution of the final decree. Learned District Judge on admission of appeal granted an ex parte order of interim stay, but vacated the stay later, as per the impugned order, when the plaintiffs-respondents entered appearance and opposed the application. The learned District Judge dismissed the application for stay mainly on the ground that the petitioner did not bring to the notice of the court that a caveat has been lodged by the plaintiffs-respondents in the District Court.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner has never received a notice from the caveators and that is the reason why be could not bring it to the notice of the court. Counsel also contended that failure of the party to inform the court of the caveat is no ground to dismiss the application, if it is otherwise allowable on merits. At any rate, the court before which the caveat was lodged failed to take note of it for no fault of the petitioner, according to the couns




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