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

2009 Supreme(Mad) 636

G.RAJASURIA
Venkatraman – Appellant
Versus
Ramesh – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner: ---
For the Respondent: --

Judgment :-

Inveighing the order dated 14. 2005 passed in AI.A.No.375 of 2005 in O.S.No.446 of 2002 by the I Additional District Munsif, Erode, this civil revision petition is focussed.

2. The long and short of the relevant facts, which are absolutely necessary and germane for the disposal of this civil revision petition would run thus:-

The revision petitioner/plaintiff filed the suit O.S.No.446 of 2002 before the I Additional District Munsif, Erode, seeking mandatory as well as permanent injunction by setting out the following prayers:

Tamil

3. The defendant entered appearance and contested the matter. Whereupon trial commenced and P.W.1 was examined on plaintiffs side. While so, I.A.No.375 of 2005 was fled by the plaintiff under Order 18 Rule 17 of C.P.C. seeking permission of the Court to recall P.W.1 for re-examination, so as to mark a xerox-copy of the alleged order passed by the Municipal Commissioner, Erode, on 8. 1976. After hearing both sides, the lower Court dismissed the said I.A. Being disconcerted and aggrieved by the order of the lower Court, this civil revision petition is focussed on various grounds, inter alia thus:-

The lower Court failed to take into consideration







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