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

1991 Supreme(Mad) 207

SRINIVASAN
K. A. Syed Ali – Appellant
Versus
Saradambal – Respondent


Appearing Advocates:M.S.Kandasamy, for Petitioner. T.R.Rajaraman for Respondent.

Judgment :-

There is no merit in this civil revision petition. It arises out of the application filed the petitioner herein to try the maintainability of the main application as a preliminary The main application R.C.O.P.No.54 of 1989 filed by the respondent is for fixation of fair at Rs.27,000 per month. That is being contested by the petitioner herein. The petitioner I.ANo.89 of 1990 for deciding the question of maintainability as a preliminary point. The Controller dismissed the application holding that the question of maintainability could gone into only in the trial after the evidence is recorded. Against that order, the petitioner filed an appeal. The appellate authority held that the appeal was not maintainable and held that the question raised by the petitioner could not be decided as a preliminary without evidence being recorded. Against the said order, the petitioner has come revision in this Court.

2. At the outset, it should be said that the appeal before the Appellate Authority was maintainable. The order of the Rent Controller dismissing I.A.No.89 of 1990 did not the rights of either parties. It merely said that the question raised by the petitioner could be gone into








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