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

2000 Supreme(Mad) 224

S.S.SUBRAMANI
L. Varadarajan and others – Appellant
Versus
Thomas and others – Respondent


Advocates:
V.Shanmugham, for Petitioners.
S.Subbiah, for Respondents.

ORDER: Respondents in A.S.No.168 of 1999 on the file of the District Court at Tuticorin, (Now transferred to Sub Court, Tuticorin and re-numbered as A.S.No.133 of 1999) are the revision petitioners.

2. Petitioners are plaintiffs in O.S.No.686 of 1996 on the file of the District Munsif’s Court at Tuticorin. Their suit was decreed as per decree and judgment dated 12.10.1999. Respondents herein without filing a copy of the certified decree, filed an appeal before the District Judge, Tuticorin, along with an application I.A.No.405 of 1999, praying to dispense with the production of certified copy of the decree for the present. In the affidavit in support of that application, it was stated by the respondent that though they have applied for the certified copy of the decree emergently on 13.10.1999 itself, the same has not been issued and if they are to wait till certified copy of decree is obtained, their rights will be prejudiced and they may be permitted to file appeal without the copy of the decree and they undertook to produce the same as and when it is prepared. The District Judge, as per order dated 15.10.1999, dispensed with the production of certified copy of decree of the trial

































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