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

2000 Supreme(Mad) 1026

V.KANAGARAJ
R. M. Arunachalam – Appellant
Versus
PL. R. Arunachalam Chettiar & Others – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
V. Raghavachari, for Petitioner.
AR.L. Sundaresan, for Respondents.

Judgment :

1. The plaintiff in the suit in O.S.No.55 of 1994 has filed the above civil revision petition against the fair and decretal order dated 22.11.99 made in I.A.No.263 of 1999 by the Court of Subordinate Judge, Devakottai, on grounds, such as, (i) that the lower court has failed to appreciate that the delay had been properly explained by examination of the petitioner and the Doctor who treated him as well, besides causing production of the document marked as Exs.A-1 to A-10; (ii) that the application under Sec.5 should be viewed liberally, which the lower court has failed to consider; (iii) that the lower court has failed to note that the matter involves substantial determination of issues on facts and the same could not be casually dealt with: (iv) that the orders of the learned Subordinate Judge are opposed to the judgment of the Supreme Court reported in N.Balakrishnan v. M.Krishnamurthy N.Balakrishnan v. M.Krishnamurthy N.Balakrishnan v. M.Krishnamurthy (1999)1 MLJ. (S.C.) 114: (1998)7 S.C.C. 123. On such grounds, the petitioner would pray to set aside the fair and decretal order of the lower court.

2. Today, when the above matter has been taken up for hearing, in conside












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