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

1966 Supreme(Ker) 7

C.A.VAIDIALINGAM
Bhanumathi – Appellant
Versus
Eappen – Respondent


Judgment :-

1. In this civil revision petition Mr. M. M. Abdul Kader, learned counsel for the petitioner, challenges the order of the learned Munsiff of Parur dated 25th October 1965, accepting the claim, made by the 1st respondent herein in Election Petition 1 of 1964. This revision petition has been filed under S.115 of the Code of Civil Procedure; and a preliminary objection has been raised by Mr. M. C. Sen learned counsel appearing for the contesting respondent, that the revision petition is incompetent. Inasmuch as I am accepting the contention of the learned counsel for the respondent, I will only refer to the essential facts, which are necessary for the purpose of understanding as to how exactly Election Petition 1 of 1964 happened to be filed and the nature of the relief granted by the authority as well as the attack that is made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, as against that order.

2. The 1st respondent to this revision petition, who was an elected member of the Panchayat in question, filed an application under S.22 of the Kerala Panchayats Act, 1960 (Act 32 of 1960), hereinafter to be referred to as the Act, for declaring that the election of the revision 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