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

2009 Supreme(Mad) 369

N.PAUL VASANTHAKUMAR
Mansoor – Appellant
Versus
Bagavathi Ammal – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioners:R.S. Ramanathan, S.D. Balaji, Advocates.
For the Respondents:S.S. Sundar, Advocate.

Judgment :-

C.R.P(PD)No.2890 of 2003 is filed challenging the order dated 9.4.1999 made in I.A.No.134 of 1998 in O.S.No.674 of 1992 on the file of the II Additional District Munsif Court, Tirunelveli.

2. C.R.P.(NPD)No.232 of 2006 is filed by the very same petitioner challenging the order passed in C.M.A.No.10 of 2004 dated 5.8.2005 on the file of the II Additional Sub Court, Tirunelveli, confirming the order dated 30.1.2004 made in I.A.No.14 of 2008 in O.S.No.674 of 1992 on the file of the II Additional District Munsif Court, Tirunelveli.

3. I.A.No.134 of 1998 in O.S.No.674 of 1992 is filed by the petitioners to condone the delay of 1767 days in filing the petition to implead the petitioners 3 to 11 in C.R.P.(PD)No.2890 of 2003 as proposed plaintiffs, since the original plaintiffs 1 and 3 in the suit, who are the respective father of the said proposed plaintiffs, died on 24.11.1995 and 24.2.1993 respectively. The reason stated in the affidavit filed in support of the interlocutory application is that the respective petitioners father conducted the case and they were not aware of the case details and due to the sudden demise of their respective father, viz., plaintiffs 1 and 3, nobody



















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