THOMAS
SUDHAKARAN – Appellant
Versus
THANKAMMA – Respondent
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
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.