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

2010 Supreme(Mad) 2140

M.VENUGOPAL
S. Abdul Rahman – Appellant
Versus
Jugraji Hiraji – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner:V. Bhiman, Advocate.
For the Respondent:M. Mahendrakumar, Advocate.

Judgment :-

1. The Civil Revision Petitioner/Appellant/Tenant has filed these two Revision Petitions as against the common order dated 29.7.2009 in R.C.A.Nos.170 & 171 of 2009 passed by the VIII Judge, Small Causes Court, Chennai in confirming the order dated 29.4.2009 in M.P.Nos.735 & 736 of 2009 passed by the XIV Judge, Small Causes Court, Chennai.

2. The Learned Rent Control Appellate Authority in its common order dated 29.07.l2009 in R.C.A.Nos.170 & 171 of 2009, has among other things observed that non payment of cost by the tenant on an application by him to set aside an exparte decree is only an efforts to prolong the proceedings under the arm of law which cannot be allowed and resultantly, confirmed the order of dismissal passed in M.P.No.736/09 and in M.P.No.735/09.

3. According to the Learned Counsel for the Revision Petitioner, the orders of the First Appellate Authority in R.C.A.Nos.170 & 171 of 2009 dated 29.07.2009 are against law, evidence and probabilities of the case and in fact, the First Appellate Authority failed to appreciate the fact that the Learned Rent Controller has committed an error in not entering the orders pronounced in the A Diary particularly the orde






























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