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

1983 Supreme(Mad) 64

SWAMIKKANNU
Iyyam Perumal – Appellant
Versus
Chinna Gounder – Respondent


Advocates:
Miss T. A. Isaimathi of M/s. Raj and Raj. for Petitioner; V. J. Ananthasivam for K. Raman, for Respondent.

Judgement

ORDER :- It is contended on behalf of the revision petitioner/second defendant- judgment-debtor, referring to the decision in Jolly George Verghese v. Bank of Cochin, AIR 1980 SC 470 at p. 471, which has been followed by this Court in the decision rendered by Balasubrahmanyan, J. in Anuma Gounder v. Ponnusami, (1981) 2 Mad LJ 229) : (AIR 1982 Mad 81) and bearing in mind the observation of the Supreme Court as well as the decision arrived at by this Court, whew the grievance of the revision petitioner is dealt with, certainly it would be seen that the order now impugned is revisable under Sec. 115, C. P. C. It is further contended, that the order pronounced by the lower Court on 25-1-1982 in R. E. P. 195 of 1981 in O. S. 201 of 1981, on the file of the learned District Munsif, Mettur Dam, the petition filed by the respondent herein plaintiff-decree-holder under O.21, Rules 11 and 32 and 38 of the Civil P. C., for arrest of the revision petitioner herein for recovery of Rs. 3,876-40 being the decree amount and costs, is certainly revisable, because, on the day of hearing of the said petition, the revision petitioner herein went late to the Court and the said belated appearan



















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