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

2006 Supreme(Mad) 1994

S.RAJESWARAN
Siddha Construction (P) Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
M. Shanmugam – Respondent


Appearing Advocates:For the Petitioner:Akshay Sharma for Satish Parasaran, Advocates. For the Respondent: ---

Judgment :-

(Revision Petition filed against the order dated 26.10.2004 in I.A.No.265/2004 in O.S.No.13/2002 on the file of the District Munsif, Tambaram.)

This Revision Petition has been filed against the order dated 26.10.2004 passed in I.A.No.265/2004 in O.S.No.13/2002 on the file of the District Munsif, Tambaram.

2. The 3rd defendant in the suit is the Revision Petitioner herein.

3. Respondents 1 to 4 herein filed O.S.No.13/2002 to declare that the sale deed executed by the 1st defendant (5th respondent herein) to and in favour of the 3rd defendant (Revision Petitioner) on 31.10.2001 in respect of the suit schedule property as null and void and also for consequential injunction. The Revision Petitioner as 3rd defendant has filed I.A.No.265/2004 under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure to adjudicate on the two issues of limitation and valuation as preliminary issues and dismiss the suit with costs. The trial court by order dated 26.10.2004 dismissed I.A.No.265/2004 and aggrieved by the same, this Civil Revision Petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. Though notice having been served on the r














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