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

1938 Supreme(Mad) 232

VARADACHARIAR
Edara Venkayya – Appellant
Versus
Edara Venkata Rao – Respondent


JUDGMENT

Varadachariar, J.

1. In these revision petitions, the petitioner challenges the validity of four orders passed by the lower Court granting leave under Order 2, Rule 2(3), Civil Procedure Code, to the plaintiff to omit the claim for certain reliefs, in the circumstances to be presently mentioned. The orders have been questioned on two grounds (i) that the Court had no power to grant leave at the stage at which the applications were made, and (ii) that the circumstances alleged in the application for leave did not justify the grant of leave. The latter question relates to the exercise of the discretion which is vested by law in the lower Court and except in very exceptional circumstances, it is not proper for a Court of Revision to interfere with the way in which the lower Court has exercised its discretion. In the present case, I do not see sufficient reason for interfering with that exercise of discretion.

2. The question as to the power of the Court to grant leave at the stage at which the applications were made to it is not free from difficulty. The relevant facts are as follow. The plaintiff was entitled to recover a sum of Rs. 20,000 from the defendant in ten annual insta








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