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

2005 Supreme(Mad) 1538

A.KULASEKARAN
Radhabai Ammal – Appellant
Versus
N. Loganathan – Respondent


Advocates:
T. Dhanya Kumar, for Petitioners; R. Margabandhu, for Respondents.

ORDER :- The respondents in A. S. No. 106 of 2003 on the file of Principal District Judge, Vellore are the Revision Petitioners herein. The appellants in the said appeal filed I. A. No. 133 of 2004 under Order 8 Rule 9 of C.P.C. to receive Additional Written Statement, which was allowed, hence the present Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

2. The petitioners respondents herein have originally filed the petition in I. A. No. 256 of 2000 for reception of additional written statement during the pendency of suit in O. S. No. 259 of 2000 raising the plea of limitation, estoppel and other grounds, which was however closed without passing any interim Order, hence an application in I. A. No. 133 of 2004 was taken out in the said A. S. No. 106 of 2003 for the very same relief. Considering the plea taken by the respondents, the first Appellate Court found that the trial Court has hastily dismissed the application of the respondents herein seeking permission to file Additional written Statement and came to the conclusion that sufficient opportunity has to be afforded to them and allowed the said application.

3. Mr. Dhanyakumar learned counsel appear











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