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

1997 Supreme(Mad) 1183

ARUNA JAGADEESAN
Tmt. Muthammal – Appellant
Versus
Gurunathan and others – Respondent


Advocates:
Mr. R. Sivaraman, Advocate for Petitioner. Mr. V. Lakshminarayanan Advocate for Respondents.

Judgment :

1. By consent of both the counsel, the Civil Revision Petition itself is taken up for final disposal.

2. The plaintiff in O.S.No. 502 of 1990 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Melur, has filed the said suit for partition of her 1/10th share in the suit properties. The suit has been dismissed on 20.9.1990 for non-payment of batta. On coming to know of the same, the petitioner herein has filed I.A.No.86 of 1995 for condoning the delay of 982 days in filing the petition for restoration of the suit stating that the suit was pending at Melur and she engaged the counsel at Madurai and the counsel has failed to take care of the matter. Thereafter, she came to know about the same and the counsel at Madurai entrusted the matter to the local counsel. Now the jurisdiction lies within the District Munsif Court.

3. The respondents have filed a counter stating that even though enough opportunities have been given for the plaintiff to pay the batta, still the batta has not been paid and the suit has been dismissed for default. Hence, there is no sufficient cause for restoration of the suit as well as the application for condoning the inordinate delay in filing the petition fo



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