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

1996 Supreme(Mad) 1241

K.A.SWAMI, A.R.LAKSHMANAN
P. R. Sundaravadanam and Others – Appellant
Versus
P. R. Vimala and Another – Respondent


Advocates:
R. Thiagarajan, for Respondents.

Judgment :-

AR.Lakshmanan, J.

For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as they are arrayed in the Letters Patent Appeal.

2. L.P.A. No.69 of 1994 is filed by the appellants/ plaintiffs against the order of K.Swamidurai, J., in C.M.P. No.15486 of 1993 in A.S.SR. No.97114 of 1992 (now numbered as Appeal No.127 of 1994) dated 11. 1994 condoning the delay of 3,670 days in filing the appeal against the judgment and final decree dated 10. 1982 in I.A.No.19362 of 1980 in O.S. No.2443 of 1969 on the file of the Third Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Madras. C.M.P. No.6549 of 1995 has been filed by the appellants to receive the documents filed as additional evidence. Appeal No.127 of 1994 has been filed by the respondents against the final decree passed in I.A. No.19362 of 1980 in O.S. No.2433 of 1969 on the file of the Third Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Madras.

3. A preliminary decree was passed in the suit on 9. 1972 on a memo of compromise. The appellants filed a petition under O.26, Rules 13 and 14 of the Code of Civil Procedure for passing a final decree in accordance with the preliminary decree. The respondents did not file any counter. An Advocate Commissioner






























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