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

SRI. RAMA REDDY – Appellant
Versus
SRI. R. MUKUNDA REDDY – Respondent


The present respondents as plaintiffs have initiated a

suit against the present petitioners arraigning them as

3

defendants 1 and 2 and also arraigning two more

defendants, for the relief of permanent injunction with

respect to the suit schedule property on 11.02.1999 in the

court of the learned VII Additional City Civil Judge, (CCH

No.19) at Bangalore (hereinafter for brevity referred to as

<the Trial Court=) in O.S.No.1175/1999.

2. The present petitioners as defendants 1 and 2

appeared in the said suit and filed their written statement,

issues were framed by the trial court in the said suit and the

matter was posted for plaintiffs9 evidence. However, due to

the reason of non-prosecution said suit came to be

dismissed for default on 24.09.2004. The plaintiffs by filing

miscellaneous petition No.762/2004 and the order passed in

the said miscellaneous petition dated 09.07.2010 got the

original suit restored on the file. Thereafter, plaintiffs filed

I.A.No.2 under Order VI Rule 17 read with Section 151 of

Civil Procedure Code on 09.03.2011. However, by

withdrawing the said I.A.No.2 on 04.03.2016 they filed

another similar I.A.No.6 under Order VI Rule 17 of

4

Civil Pro

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