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

2010 Supreme(Mad) 2991

G.RAJASURIA
G. Suresh Mohan – Appellant
Versus
S. Lilly, (R2 given up) – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner:N. Manoharan, Advocate.
For the Respondent:R1, A.K. Kumarasamy, Advocate.

Judgment :-

1. Animadverting upon the order dated 22.02.2010 passed in E.P.No.59 of 2008 in O.S.No.145 of 2006 by the learned District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Perundurai, this Civil Revision Petition is focussed.

2. Heard both sides.


3. Broadly but briefly, narratively but precisely, the relevant facts absolutely necessary and germane for the disposal of this revision would run thus:

The respondent herein filed the suit in O.S.No.145 of 2006 and obtained a decree for recovery of possession in respect of an immovable property as against the revision petitioner herein. Subsequently, the respondent filed E.P.No.59 of 2008 for enforcing the decree. In the meantime, the revision petitioner/defendant filed the appeal with the application to get the delay of 225 condoned and that application is still pending in the Sub Court, Perundurai. In the meanwhile, counter was filed by the revision petitioner herein before the Executing Court and after hearing both sides, the Executing Court ordered delivery. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the said order, this revision has been filed on various grounds.

4. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner, reiterating the grounds of re




















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