Back
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
DR. K.MANMADHA RAO, J
SMT. VASUGI – Appellant
Versus
SRI R UMAPATHI – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. writ petition's intent disclosed formal issues requiring resolution. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. arguments presented regarding rejection of memo and legal representative issues. (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 7) |
| 3. court's observations on the procedural errors and implications. (Para 8 , 9 , 10) |
| 4. clarifies judicial necessity for following proper procedures. (Para 11 , 12) |
| 5. court's final directives on rectifying the procedural error. (Para 13 , 14) |
CAV ORDER
2. Brief facts of the case are that, it is the case of the petitioner that she had filed P.Mis.No.01/2006 before the Family Court, Bengaluru under Section 141 read with Order XXXIII Rules 1 and 2 of the CPC seeking declaration and cancellation of sale deeds as an indigent person, which was allowed and O.S.No.183/2011 came to be registered.
4. During pendency of the suit, respondent No.2 died on 28.02.2021, and petitioner’s counsel filed a Memo dated
5. It is contended by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that the Court below erred in rejecting the Memo filed by the petitioner dated 16.03.2021 on the ground that defendant No.2 was exparte and had alienated the property to defendant Nos.6 and 7. The petitioner had not sought
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
