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

2001 Supreme(Mad) 235

PRABHA SRIDEVAN
Kamalavathy – Appellant
Versus
B. Subramaiah – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
Mr.M. Kamalanathan, Advocate for Petitioner. Mr.R.S. Ranganathan, Advocate for Respondent.

Judgment :

1. The C.R.P.No.280 of 2001 is against E.P.No.336 of 1997 which has been filed against order dated 5.12.2000 directing the petitioner to remove the illegal construction to the extent of 200 sq.ft. and to deliver vacant possession on or before 4.2.2001. C.R.P.No.601 of 2001 (C.R.P.S.R.No.99845 of 2000) has been filed against the order passed in Section 47 Petition in the same proceedings as referred to above. This was filed with a delay of 787 days in filing the revision petition. Both the counsel have argued this civil revision petition also in view of the fact C.R.P.. No. 280 of 2000 is only an order consequent to the dismissal of the Section 47 petition. The delay is condoned and the office is directed to number the civil revision petition. This has since been numbered as C.R.P.No.601 of 2001.

2. Thefacts of the case are as follows: The petitioner is the defendant against whom the respondent filed a suit for mandatory injunction to remove the illegal construction put up by the defendant to the extent of 200 sq.ft. on the southern side of the plaintiffs plot more particularly described in the Schedule A herein abutting the northern side of the defendant's plot, more par














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