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

2008 Supreme(Mad) 1043

R.BANUMATHI
R. Vino @ Veincentza – Appellant
Versus
Maria Grace Benefit Fund Ltd. , – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioners:PT. S. Narendravasan, Advocate. For the Respondent: ----

Judgment :-

This revision is directed against the order in I.A.No.364 of 2007 dismissing the petition filed under Order 8 Rule 9 CPC and declining permission to file Additional Written Statement. Defendants are the revision petitioners.

2. Respondent/Plaintiff - Maria Grace Benefit Fund Limited has filed the suit for recovery of Rs.5,84,000/- with subsequent interest and cost. The Petitioners/Defendants have filed their written statement on 06.09.2006. When the suit was taken up for trial and after filing of proof affidavit, Petitioners/Defendants have filed I.A.No.364 of 2007 under Order 8 Rule 9 CPC seeking to file Additional Written Statement. In the Additional Written Statement, Petitioners/Defendants have raised the point regarding competency of Fr. Jeganivasagar to file the suit.

3. Upon consideration of submissions, the learned I Additional District Judge has dismissed the petition observing that proof affidavit was already filed and that petition has been filed with a view to delay the trial proceedings. The learned Trial Judge also observed that if the petition is allowed, it will cause prejudice to the Respondent/Plaintiff.

4. Challenging the impugned order, the learned cou






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