R.SUBBIAH, T.KRISHNAVALLI
M. Karuppuraj – Appellant
Versus
M. Ganesan – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
R. Subbiah, J.
1. Seeking to review the Judgment and Decree, dated 27.11.2017 passed by this Court in A.S. No. 94 of 2010, the Respondent therein has come forward with this Review Application.
2. For the sake of convenience, the Respondent in this Review Applicant herein shall be referred to as 'Plaintiff and the Review Applicant shall be referred to as 'Defendant', as has been arrayed in the Suit.
3. The Respondent herein, as Plaintiff, has instituted the Suit in O.S. No. 562 of 2006 on the file of the I Additional District Court, Coimbatore for Specific Performance of the Agreement, dated 11.4.2006. The Suit was dismissed by the Trial Court by a Judgment and Decree, dated 25.8.2009. Challenging the same, the Plaintiff/Respondent herein has filed A.S. No. 94 of 2010 before this Court. In the Appeal, even though Notice was served on the Review Applicant/Defendant on 9.4.2010, he has not chosen to appear before this Court to defend the Appeal. However, the hearing of the Appeal was periodically adjourned for about 7½ years from 9.4.2010 to 14.11.2017 and on all those hearings, there was no representation for the Review Applicant/Defendant. Therefore, by the Judgment and Decre
Surjit Kaur v. Naurata Singh and another
Lourdu Mari David v. Louis Chinnaya Arogiaswamy
Surinder Singh v. Kapoor Singh (dead) through LRs. and others
Rachakonda Narayana v. Ponthala Parvathamma and another
Kalyanpur Lime Works Ltd. v. State of Bihar
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.