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

2013 Supreme(Mad) 644

M.VENUGOPAL
Peyathevar – Appellant
Versus
Ranganathan – Respondent


Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioners: No appearance.
For the Respondent:M/s. Ajmal Associates, Advocates.

JUDGMENT

1. The Petitioners have preferred the present Review Petition as against the Order dated 5/1/2011 in C.R.P.(MD) No.1185 of 2003 passed by this Court.

2. It is to be borne in mind that this Court while passing the order on 5/1/2011 in C.R.P. (MD) No.1185 of 2003 has inter alia observed in paragraph Nos.17 to 20 as follows:-

“17. At this juncture, it is useful for this Court to make a significant mention to the averment made by the revision petitioner/defendant (since deceased) in the sworn statement in the chief examination, in I.A.No.99 of 2002 at paragraph 3, wherein he has mentioned that during 02.11.2000, he has been working as a Teacher in Surlipatti and he used to go to his native place Madurai once in three or four months and when the suit has come up for final hearing on 02.11.2000, his counsel has informed him to his residential address, but he has not received the same and hence, he has not appeared for the hearing on 02.11.2000. The averment made by the revision petitioner/defendant (since deceased) in his own affidavit in the Chief examination in I.A.No.99 of 2002 at paragraph 3 to the effect that during 02.11.2000, he has served in Surlipatti and he used to c



















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