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

1998 Supreme(Mad) 142

D.RAJU
Thangapandian and another – Appellant
Versus
Sri Muthumariamman Idol, Somarasampettai, Trichy taluk represented by the Executive Officer – Respondent


Advocates:
Mr.R.Srinivasan, Advocate for the Petitioner.

Judgment :

1. The above revision has been filed by the defendants in O.S.No.950 of 1987 on the file of the Sub Court. Tiruchirappalli, challenging the order passed by the learned judge in the court below dated 9. 1992 in I.A.No.393 of 1992, wherein the plaintiff has been permitted to withdraw the suit O.S.No.950 of 1987 with liberty to file a fresh suit on the same cause of action in exercise of the powers under Order 23, Rule 1 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

2. The suit was filed by the plaintiff-temple represented by its Executive Officer for recovery of possession of the suit property based on title. It appears that the defendants contested the claim by filing a written statement contending that the plaintiff -temple has no title to the suit property. At that stage, it appears that on verification it was noticed that the description of property as given in the plaint is not complete either in respect of boundaries or in respect of the measurements and this technical defect may cause prejudice to the rights and interests of the plaintiff-temple. Consequently, on advice, the application for withdrawal with liberty to file fresh suit on the same subject mat





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