That advocate commissioner cannot be appointed suo motu that Motu is unsustainable and is against the settled principles of law The court below is contrary to law and probabilities of the caseĪnd the approach in appointment of advocate commissioner suo The grounds of revision are that the impugned order of It is said commissioner appointment forĬross examination of PW.1 impugned in the revision.ģ. G.Saleem is appointed in his place to execute the warrant, which P.Balasubramanyam warrant is cancelled and another advocate Returned when the matter was so coming and said advocate Subsequently the commissioner neither executed the warrant nor Was taken on oath and Exs.A1 to A13 marked and after filing ofĬhief affidavit a petition for appointment of advocateĬommissioner filed and on one P.Balasubramanyam,Īdvocate is appointed as commissioner to record crossĮxamination of PW.1 and fee of Rs.600/- payable by both parties. Plaintiff as PW.1 filed in chief examination and it is coming forĬross examination of PW.1 from where chief affidavit Respective pleadings and issues was in the progress of trial. Mail the 1st defendant and other contentions. Land, plaintiffs husband created the so called agreement to black Plaintiffs husband and the 1st defendant in respect of some dry Possession and because of family differences between the ![]() Having received consideration pursuant to the sale and put in In favour of the 2nd defendant-V.Chinchu Naidu for Rs.2,70,000/. Sale dated executed by the 1st defendant and his wife In the name of the plaintiff after knowledge about the registered Plaintiff and it is a spur document created by husband of plaintiff Signed by the defendants and they received no advance and neverĪgreed to sell the property or any portion thereof much less to The defendants contest is that the suit saleĪgreement is a rank forgery and it was never executed and not ![]() Sale agreement supra, legal notice, reply, rejoinder, reply and Mandal, Chittoor District in S.Nos.62, 70/3A, 70/4, 71, 72/1,ħ3/7, 73/9, 99 & 106 out of the full extents put together supra.Īlong with plaint filed in November 2011 the documents filed are Total Ac.1-94 cents of Kondepalle Gram Panchayat, GD Nellore The sale agreement till date of its recovery with costs of suit andįor such other reliefs. Refund of the advance amount of Rs.1,00,000/- with interest from The contract for sale dated and in the alternative for The suit filed is for the relief of specific performance of Revision respondent is the sole plaintiff.Ģ. The revision petitioners are defendants in O.S.No.547 ofĢ011 on the file of Principal Senior Civil Judge, Chittoor, and the AIR 1966 Allahabad page 84 (F.B.) at page 87 23 (Indian Appeals) page 106 (privy council) year1896ģ6. AnjaneyuluĬounsel for the respondent:Sri L.J. ![]() ![]() Siva Sankara RaoĬounsel for the petitioners:Sri V.S.R. V.Ramadevi on 31 January, 2018 Author: B. Try out our Premium Member services - Free for one month. Take notes as you read a judgment using our Virtual Legal Assistant and get email alerts whenever a new judgment matches your query ( Query Alert Service).
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |