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

2009 Supreme(Mad) 1303

M.VENUGOPAL
M. Paul Raj – Appellant
Versus
N. Paramasivam – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
T. Lajapathi Roy, for Petitioner
D. Rajagopal for Respondents

ORDER

The civil revision petitioner/appellant has preferred this civil revision petition as against the order passed in I.A. No. 10 of 2008 in R.C.A. No. 16 of 2004 passed by the learned Principal Subordinate Judge, Nagercoil, Kanyakumari District (learned appellate authority) in dismissing the application filed by the petitioner under Order 1 Rule 10(2) and Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, to implead the Executive Officer, Incorporated and uncorporated Devasams, Suchindram, Kanyakumari District.

2. The learned appellate authority namely the learned Principal Subordinate Judge, Nagercoil, Kanyakumari District, while passing orders in I.A. No. 10 of 2008 has come to the conclusion that the proposed party namely the second respondent Devasom Board is not necessary or a proper party to the appeal proceedings and resultantly, dismissed the application.

3. According to the learned counsel for the revision petitioner, the learned appellate authority, has dismissed the I.A. No. 10 of 2080 filed by the revision petitioner in R.C.A. No. 16 of 2004 on the file of the learned Principal Subordinate Judge, Nagercoil, without considering the merits of the application and further that, he









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