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

2007 Supreme(Mad) 130

P.JYOTHIMANI
Krishnamoorthy – Appellant
Versus
Parasuraman & Others – Respondent


Advocates:
For the Petitioner:V. Raghavachari, Advocate. For the Respondents:R2 & R3, T. Gandhi, Advocate.

Judgment :-

The second plaintiff in the suit is the revision petitioner, which is filed under Section 115 of Code of Civil Procedure. The revision arises from the order passed by the learned Trial Judge in dismissing the application filed by the petitioner under Section 5 of the limitation Act for condoning the delay of 95 days in filing a petition to restore the suit dismissed on 17.08.2000.

2. The case of the plaintiff is that the first plaintiff being a mortgager in a mortgage deed executed by him in favour of the first defendant Parasuraman, has filed the suit for redemption in the District Munsif Court, Tirukovilur against the defendants 1 to 6 in O.S.No.430 of 1982 and after the trial, the trial court has passed a preliminary decree on 11.04.1984. The appeal filed against the said preliminary decree by the second and third defendants in A.S.No.144 of 1984, was also dismissed on 04.08.1986. It was there after, the first plaintiff filed I.A.No.668 of 1988 in O.S.No.430 of 1982 for passing final decree. In the mean time, since the first plaintiff parasuraman died, an application to condone delay, as well as to set aside abatement was filed by the second plaintiff along with the













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