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

2003 Supreme(Mad) 47

A.KULASEKARAN
Thirupathi – Appellant
Versus
Kothai Aachi – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:For the Petitioner:Mr. V. Srinivasan, Advocate. For the Respondent:Mr. S.P. Maharajan, Advocate.

Judgment :-

The Plaintiff in O.S. No. 872 of 1996 before the II Additional District Munsif, Tirunelveli is the revision petitioner herein. The Plaintiff has filed the said suit for a declaration to declare that he is the adopted son of Late. Chockalinga Chettiar and his wife namely Kothai Achi, respondent herein. In the said suit examination of the witnesses of both sides were over and the case was posted for arguments. At that time, the respondent herein has filed an application I.A. No. 76 of 2002 under Order VIII Rule 9 CPC seeking permission of the Court to receive the additional written statement. The trial court, after hearing both sides has allowed the said petition, hence this revision.

2. Heard both sides. Mr. Srinivas, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the trial court exceeded its jurisdiction and permitted the respondent to file her additional written statement without satisfying the requirements under Order 8 Rule 9 CPC; that the trial court failed to note the scope and power of the Court conferred under Section 21 of CPC; that the trial court completely overlooked that the respondent has submitted to the jurisdiction, hence estopped from quest













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