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

2018 Supreme(Mad) 1837

M.V.MURALIDARAN
Silambara Vadivu – Appellant
Versus
Raju – Respondent


Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioners: Mr. D. Senthil
For the Respondents: Mr. V. Sitharanjandas

ORDER :

Both these Civil Revision Petitions are arising out of one and the same suit in O.S. No. 75 of 2017 and the issue involved in the Civil Revision Petitions are also the same, hence following common order is passed.

2. In so far as Civil Revision Petition No. 605 of 2018 is concerned, it is filed as against the order of allowing I.A. No. 51 of 2017 dated 11.01.2018 filed for comparison of Signature by the plaintiff/respondent.

3. In as much as C.R.P. No. 606 of 2018 is concerned, it is filed as against the order rejecting the application filed by the defendants/petitioners to cancel Exhibit A1 sale agreement in I.A. No. 52 of 2017 dated 11.01.2018.

4. The defendants in the suit in O.S. No. 75 of 2017 which was filed by the respondent/plaintiff for specific performance are the revision petitioners herein.

5. It is the submissions of the learned Counsel for the revision petitioners that respondents herein as plaintiff filed the Suit against the Revision petitioners in O.S.No.75 of 2017 on the file of the Sub Court, Mudukulathur for the relief of specific performance of the contract.

6. It is the contention of the Revision petitioners that the plaintiff has laid the suit basing upon E







































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