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

2013 Supreme(Online)(KER) 36767

HIGH COURT OF KERALA
THOMAS P.JOSEPH, J
A T REGHUNATH – Appellant
Versus
MATHA AMRITHANANDAMAYI MATH – Respondent


J U D G M E N T

Respondent is served.

2. Exhibit P8, order dated 22.2.2013 on I.A. No.460 of 2013 in O.S.

No.406 of 2011 of the Principal Sub Court, North Paravur is under challenge.

3. Respondent, claiming to be a registered trust filed the suit for a decree for specific performance of an agreement for sale executed between petitioners and the respondent. Petitioners filed Ext.P3, written statement contending that respondent committed breach of the agreement. While the suit was pending, respondent filed Ext.P7, application under Rule 8 of Order I of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short, “the Code”). That application was allowed by Ext.P8, order.

4. Learned counsel for petitioner contends that since even as asserted in Ext.P1, plaint respondent is a registered trust, question of publication under Rule 8 of Order I of the Code does not arise. It is contended that a registered trust by itself is a legal entity entitled to sue and be sued and hence leave or publication under Rule 8 of Order I of the Code is not required. It is further submitted that in Ext.P7, application main reason for seeking publication stated is that if anybody is interested in opposing the suit, he must be given no

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