Judgement Key Points

MILAP CHANDRA, J.—This application has been moved for reviving the Revision Petition No. 307/86 which was dismissed as infructuous on the ground that the suit out of which it arose had been rejected under O. 7 Rule 11, C.P.C.

2. It was contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that it is clear from the order dated January 17,1989 passed by this Court in the said revision petition that it was dismissed as becoming infructuous on the ground that the plaint had been rejected on 23. 11, 1985 under 0. 7 Rule 11, C.P.C, the order dated 23. 11. 1985 rejecting the plaint has been set aside, the suit has stood restored to its original number, as a result thereof, the injunction order giving rise to the revision petition has also stood revived and, therefore, the revision petition be taken on record and be decided on merits. He relied upon Ganesh Pd. v. Laxmi Narain (1), Binayak Swain vs. Ramesh Chandra (2), Saranatha Ayyangar vs. Muthiah Moopanar (3), Tavvala Veeraswami vs. Pulim Ramanna (4) and Nandipati Rami Reddi vs. Nandipati Padma Reddy (5).

3. In reply, it was contended by the learned counsel for the non-petitioners Mo l to 8 that the temporary injunction giving rise to the Re

Click Here to Read the rest of this document