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

2006 Supreme(Mad) 2430

S.RAJESWARAN
Thiyagarajan – Appellant
Versus
Manivannan – Respondent


Appearing Advocates:For the Petitioner:G. Karthikeyan, Advocate. For the Respondent:R. Gowthamanarayanan, Advocate.

Judgment :-

(Revision Petition filed against the order dated 21.3.2005, made in I.A.No.247/2004 in O.S.No.99/2004, on the file of the District Munsif Court, Chengam.)

This Civil Revision Petition has been filed against the order dated 21.3.2005, made in I.A.No.247/2004 in O.S.No.99/2004, on the file of the District Munsif Court, Chengam.

2. The defendant is the revision petitioner herein. The suit was filed by the respondent/plaintiff in O.S.No.21/1999 on the file of the Addl.Sub-Judge, Tiruvannamalai for recovery of money on the basis of made- over promissory note from his father, against the petitioner/defendant. Pending suit, the petitioner/defendant filed I.A.No.247/2004 seeking permission for filing additional written statement. The trial court by order dated 21.3.2005 dismissed the same. Aggrieved by the order dated 21.3.2005, the above Civil Revision Petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India by the petitioner/defendant.

3. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as the learned counsel for the respondent. I have also gone through the documents filed by them and also the judgments referred to by them in support of their submissi

































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