SUBBY REDDY ALIAS SUBBAREDDY Vs. LEELAVATHY AMMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AS against the order rejecting the petition filed by the petitioner under O.47, Rule 1, C.P.C. to review the judgment delivered in O.S.No.202 of 1988 on 6.2.1995, he has presented this revision before this Court.

(2.) ORIGINALLY, the petitioner filed the suit in O.S.No.202 of 1988 for declaration of title and for recovery of possession as against the defendants, the respondents herein. During the course of trial, the trial Court found that there is no jurisdiction to try the suit and therefore, it dismissed the same on 12.3.1993. As against that judgment, the petitioner filed C.M.A No.24 of 1993 and by the order dated 21.3.1994 the Appellate Court set aside the judgment dismissing the suit and remanded the matter to consider the question afresh.

(3.) MOREOVER, it is an admitted case that after the remand by the Appellate Court, the counsel for the petitioner requested the trial Court to have a de novo trial and stated that he would not press for the point of pecuniary jurisdiction. So, on the basis of the representation and the endorsement on behalf of the plaintiff, the Court had a full trial and on appreciation of the evidence, it found that the plaintiff was not entitled to the reliefs sought for.