REGENT COMPUTRONICS PVT. LTD.

CHINNAMMAL Appellant

V/S

THANGAVEL Respondents

Referred Judgements :-

A.C. LAKSHMIPATHY V. A.M. CHAKRAPANI REDDIAR [REFERRED TO]
SAJJADANASHIN SAYED MD B E EDR D VS. MUSA DADABHAI UMMER [REFERRED TO]
CHILAKURI GANGULAPPA VS. REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER MADANAPALLE [REFERRED TO]
BONDAR SINGH VS. NIHAL SINGH [REFERRED TO]
LUHAR TULSIDAS NARSIBHAI VS. VRAJLAL LALJI VAGHELA [REFERRED TO]
CHELLAMMAL VS. MEENAKSHI [REFERRED TO]
Amudha VS. K Jeyaraman [REFERRED TO]
THILAGAVATHY VS. MOHAMMED RABEEK [REFERRED TO]
SELLAMUTHUGOUNDER VS. MARAPPAGOUNDER [REFERRED TO]
JAGADEESH VS. B M BILLAN [REFERRED TO]
RANGANATHA GIRAMANI VS. VISALATCHI [REFERRED TO]
DINAKARAN VS. VENKAESAN [REFERRED TO]
S RAGHUNATHA GOUNDER VS. PATTAPPA GOUNDER [REFERRED TO]
P NARAYANAN VS. KASI [REFERRED TO]
M PERIYAKARUPPAN VS. NACHIYAPPAN [REFERRED TO]

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS memorandum of civil revision is directed against the fair and decretal Order dated 6.10.2007 and made in LA. No. 260 of 2007 in A.S. No. 17 of 2007, on the file of the learned First Additional District Judge, Erode.

(2.) THE background facts:

(3.) ON perusal of the records, it is revealed that the learned Subordinate Judge, Erode while dismissing the application in LA. No. 25 of 2006 in O.S. No. 183 of 2006 has found that the document under Exhibit B-1 could not be received in evidence for want of registration and payment of necessary stamp duty and therefore the controversy with regard to the question as to whether Exhibit B-l contains the thumb impression of the first revision petitioner/first plaintiff or not has become pale into insignificance.

Click here to view full judgment.

CHINNAMMAL Vs. THANGAVEL

Referred Judgements :-

JUDGEMENT

QUick Links

Get in Touch

Email

Contact Numbers

Address