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

2010 Supreme(Mad) 2423

G.RAJASURIA
P. Deivasigamani – Appellant
Versus
Asha Siraj – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner:M.A.P. Thangavel, Advocate.
For the Respondent: No appearance.

Judgment :-

1. Inveighing the order dated 5.2.2010 passed in I.A.No.37 of 2007 in O.S.No.6 of 2005 by the Additional District Court(Fast Track Court-II), Gobichettipalayam, this civil revision petition is focussed.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner, by filing the affidavit of service, would submit that the respondent and her advocate were served in person and despite that there is no response. As such, the learned counsel prays for orders on merits in this revision.

4. I could see considerable force in the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. Accordingly, the civil revision petition itself is taken up for disposal at this stage itself.

5. The warp and woof of the relevant facts, which are absolutely necessary and germane for the disposal of this civil revision petition, would run thus:-

(i) The respondent herein filed the suit O.S.No.6 of 2005 seeking the following reliefs:

"to direct the defendant to pay the plaintiff a sum of Rs.5,60,000/- with future interest at the rate of 1.5% per month from the date of suit till the date of realisation of the decree amount."

(ii) Whereupon written statement was filed.











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