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

2015 Supreme(Mad) 3641

PUSHPA SATHYANARAYANA
Rajendran – Appellant
Versus
Akkammal – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant :V. Natarajan, Advocate.

JUDGMENT :

Pushpa Sathyanarayana, J.

1. The Civil Revision Petition has been filed against the Orders dated 9.7.2014 made in I.A. Nos. 19 & 20 of 2014 in R.C.O.P. No. 6 of 2007 passed by the file of the learned District Munsif Court, Tiruchendur. The Tenant is a Revision Petitioner in the Rent Control proceedings. The Applications were filed by the Tenant to reopen the Respondent's side evidence and to recall P.W. 1 for further cross-examination. The said Applications were dismissed, against which, these Revisions are filed.

2. In a Rent Control proceedings, where it is filed for eviction, any Interlocutory Application may be filed. However, the Orders passed in such Interlocutory Application, unless it affects the rights and liabilities of the parties in the main Petition, are not appealable, much less a Revision is not maintainable against the same. Even assuming that the Petitioner is entitled to challenge the Order impugned, he should have only filed an Appeal before the Rent Control Appellate Authority and should not have moved this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Any Order, passed by the Rent Controller in an Interlocutory Application, which does not affect






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