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

1936 Supreme(Mad) 268

VENKATARAMANA RAO
Kotamreddi Subba Reddi – Appellant
Versus
Perumareddi Venkatanarasimharreddi – Respondent


JUDGMENT

Venkataramana Rao, J.

1. This is a Civil Miscellaneous Appeal against the order of the District Judge of Nellore refusing to receive a plaint.

2. A preliminary objection has been taken that no appeal lies and it is conceded that no appeal lies. A revision petition has been filed and I therefore propose to deal with the said petition.

3. The suit was to recover a sum of Rs. 8,131-13-0 upon a promissory note executed by defendants 1, 5 and 8 in favour of the plaintiff and also for a declaration that a certain mortgage executed by the eighth defendant in favour of the ninth defendant is void and not binding upon the creditors of the family of defendants 1 to 8. On the last date of limitation, that is, on the 24th February, 1934, the plaintiff appeared to have gone to the office of his pleader and asked him to prepare a plaint and file the same in Court that day. It was about 12 noon when he saw his pleader. The Court-fee leviable on the plaint is a sum of Rs. 710-12-0. It seems that the Court-fee stamps of the denomination required under the rules could only be obtained from the Taluk Office and for that purpose the money had to be paid into the Taluk Office before 11-30 A.M. So









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