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

2003 Supreme(Ker) 470

K.S.RADHAKRISHNAN, PIUS C.KURIAKOSE
Mac-N-Hom Systems – Appellant
Versus
Vaidya Ratnam – Respondent


Judgment :-

Radhakrishnan, J.

This appeal is preferred against the order in Original Petition (Indigent) No. 8 of 2001 of Sub Court, Tirur. OP.8/01 was preferred under Order 33 Rule 2 of the Code of Civil procedure seeking permission to institute the suit as indigent person. Suit was instituted for a decree for realization of an amount of Rs.36,55,129/- as damages from the respondent. Court fee payable was Rs.2,06, 560/-. Petitioner stated that he does not have sufficient means to pay the court fee. Consequently permission was sought for to file the suit as an indigent person. Respondent filed counter statement contending that the application is not proper, that the petitioner is not an indigent person and that the suit is barred by the law of limitation.

2. Question regarding the maintainability of the application under Order 33 Rule 2 and as to whether the application is barred by Law of Limitation was considered as a preliminary issue. Court below found that petitioner has substantially complied with the provisions contained in Order 33 Rule 2 CPC in making the application. Court below however, Look the view that the suit is barred by Law of Limitation holding that the petitioner





















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