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

2012 Supreme(Mad) 3914

M.VENUGOPAL
Jayaraman – Appellant
Versus
Munusamy – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioners:K.Govi Ganesan, Advocate.
For the Respondent:M.Christopher, Advocate.

Judgment :-

The Petitioners/Defendants 2 & 3 have filed the present Civil Revision Petition as against the order in I.A.No.337 of 2009 in O.S.No.39 of 2003 dated 14.09.2009 passed by the Learned District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Uthiramerur.

2. The Learned District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Uthiramerur, while passing orders in I.A.No.337 of 2009 (filed by the Revision Petitioners/Defendants 2 & 3), has, among other things, observed that 'the present application has been filed only with a view to protract the pending case and further, the averments made in the application have already been made in the additional written statement filed by the Petitioners/Defendants 2 & 3 as early as on 19.08.2008. Once again very same averments have been mentioned and the present I.A.No.337 of 2009 has been filed. Further, the evidence of Plaintiff and Defendants are over and the case has been posted for hearing of the arguments. In this circumstance, the application has been filed belatedly etc.' and consequently, dismissed the application without costs.

3. The Learned Counsel for the Petitioners/Defendants 2 & 3 submits that the trial Court has not appreciated of the fact that the le













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