SHAMEEM AKTHER
Syed Kaleemulloa Quadri – Appellant
Versus
Yarasingh Vishnuvardhan – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
1. This Civil Revision Petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is filed by the petitioner/plaintiff, challenging the order, dated 29.04.2019, passed in I.A.No.267 of 2019 in O.S.No.27 of 2013, by the III Additional District Judge, Karimnagar, whereby, the petition filed by the respondents 1 and 2 herein/defendants 13 and 14 under Order VI Rule 17 read with Section 151 of CPC and Rule 28 of the Civil Rules of Practice, for amendment of written statement, was allowed.
2. Heard the learned counsel for both the sides and perused the record.
3. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner/plaintiff would contend that the trial in the subject suit in O.S.No.27 of 2013 had commenced by filing the chief affidavit of P.W.1 and marking of the documents. The Court below, under the premise that trial in the subject suit has not commenced, was pleased to allow the subject interlocutory application. The learned counsel further submits that the respondents 1 and 2 herein/defendants 13 and 14 have to establish that in spite of due diligence, such plea was not taken before commencement of trial. There is no finding to that effect in the impugned order of the Court below
Mohinder Kumar Mehra Vs. Roop Rani Mehra and others
Vidyabai & Ors. Vs. Padmalatha & Anr.
Mahila Ramkali Devi & others Vs. Nandram (dead) through L.R.s and others
Jai Jai Ram Manohar Lal v. National Building Material Supply, Gurgaon
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
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.