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

2021 Supreme(Online)(MAD) 8062

HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
Hon`ble Mr.Justice R.SUBRAMANIAN
R.V.PERUMAL ASARI – Appellant
Versus
ABDUL SHALAM(DIED) – Respondent


ORDER

This revision is against the order made in I.A.No.268 of 2008, in and by which, the trial Court dismissed the application for extension of time for payment of deficit Court fee.

2.The facts, that lead to filing of this revision, are as follows:

2.1.The plaintiff sued for specific performance of an agreement of sale entered into between him and the first defendant on 25.10.2004. The suit property, admittedly, belonged to the second defendant and it is stated that it was allotted to the first defendant. The prayer of the plaintiff is to direct the first defendant to compel the second defendant to execute the sale in his favour and thereafter, execute a sale in favour of the plaintiff. The Court pay fee payable in the suit was stated to be Rs.6,826.50/-. However, only Rs.41/- was paid along with the plaint.

2.2.Though the agreement of sale is dated 25.10.2004 and it prescribed the period of two months for performance, the notice of demand itself was issued by the plaintiff only on 27.11.2007, ie., nearly after expiry of three years one month from the date of the agreement, it is claimed that since no sale deed was obtained by the first defendant from the second defendant, the plain

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