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

2000 Supreme(Mad) 670

V.KANAGARAJ
Pakkiammal – Appellant
Versus
Anaiappan – Respondent


Appearing Advocates:Mr. V. Ragavachari, Advocate for Petitioner. Mr. V. Girish Kumar, Advocate for Respondent.

Judgment :-

1. The plaintiff in the suit in O.S.No.392 of 1989 on the file of the Court of Principal District Munsif, Ulundurpet is the petitioner in this civil revision petition and he has filed this revision against the fair and decretal order dated 1.4.1997 made in I.A. No.1341 of 1995 in I.A.No.1597 of 1994 in O.S.No.392 of 1989.

2. When the above matter was taken up for consideration, in the presence of both the learned counsel, on perusal of the materials placed on record and upon hearing the learned counsel for both, what comes to be known is that I.A.No.1341 of 1995 had been filed before the lower court under Section 151, CPC praying to restore the petition filed under Order 9, Rule 9 by the petitioner which had been dismissed by the court below on 18.1.1995; that the court below had allowed the petition filed on the part of the petitioner on condition to pay the costs on or before 18.1.1995, but the petitioner would come forward to say that in spite of the same being intimated by his lawyer, on account of ill-health, he was not able to comply with the condition imposed by this Court resulting in the order passed in favour of the petitioner having come to be lapsed.

3. On t












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