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

2010 Supreme(Mad) 4416

M.VENUGOPAL
P. Kumar – Appellant
Versus
Sanjay Agarwal – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner:V.R. Shanmuganathan, Advocate.
For the Respondents:V. Lakshminarayanan, Advocate.

Judgment :-

1. The Petitioner/Respondent/Plaintiff has filed this Civil Revision Petition as against the order dated 30.04.2009 in I.A.No.74 of 2008 in O.S.No.91 of 2007 on the file of the Principal District Court, Krishnagiri.

2. The trial court in I.A.No.74 of 2008 in O.S.No.91 of 2007 on 30.04.2009 has among other things held that the Revision Petitioner/Plaintiff neither paid the Court fee within the period of limitation nor filed Application under Section 149 of the Civil Procedure Code to extend time for payment of deficit Court Fee and opined that the defect of non filing of application under Section 149 of the Civil Procedure Code to extend the time of payment of deficit Court Fee cannot be cured and resultantly, allowed the Interlocutory Application praying to reject the plaint under Order 7, Rule 11 of Civil Procedure Code without costs.

3. According to the Learned counsel for the Revision Petitioner/Plaintiff, the order of the trial court in I.A.No.74 of 2008 in O.S.No.91 of 2007 dated 30.04.2009 in allowing the Application praying to reject the plaint under Order 7, Rule 11 of Civil Procedure Code is not a correct one in the eye of law and as a matter of fact, the trial co






























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