Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 3 of 3 (0.29 seconds)
Documents citing Arulmighu Arasadi Karpaga Vinayagar ... vs The Commissioner, H.R. & C.E. on 21 February, 2003

C.Pandian vs Nagarajan on 19 June, 2019

3.Learned counsel appearing for the appellant, placing on record a judgment dated 21.02.2003 passed in L.P.A. No.189 of 2000 in the case of Arulmighu Arasadi Karpaga Vinayagar Temple vs. the Commissioner, H.R.&C.E., would submit that if the Trial Court has disposed of the case otherwise than a preliminary report and the decree has been reversed in Appeal, a re-trial is inevitable, but in the present case re-trial has been ordered stating that the same has not been successfully complied with. Arguing further, learned counsel appearing for the appellant would submit that the appellant filed a suit for permanent injunction on the file of the learned Principal District Munsif, Ariyalur on the basis of Exs.A1 to A5. Whereas the defendant respondent has filed 14 documents as Exs.B1 to B14. The learned Trial Court, after going through all the documents placed by both parties to the suit, went into the oral evidence placed by the witnesses and decreed the suit holding that the plaintiff appellant has purchased the suit property only on the basis of the Sale Deed dated 16.07.1987 from his vendors Periyammal and her husband Selliah. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court on 21.12.1994, http://www.judis.nic.in 3 granting permanent injunction, the defendant respondent filed an Appeal in A.S. No.51 of 1995 before the learned Sub Court, Ariyalur. During the pendency of the Appeal, ten more documents were filed. The learned First Appellate Court, mechanically remanded the matter to re-try the suit once again by the Trial Court ignoring the fact that the suit has been pending from 1993.
Madras High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 0 - T Raja - Full Document

M.Lakshmanan vs K.Thirunavukkarasu Mudaliar on 26 April, 2010

14. A Division Bench of this Court in Arulmighu Arasadi Karpaga Vinayagar Temple vs. The Commissioner, H.R. & C.E., reported in 2003 (2) CTC 663, held that wrong framing of issues would not render the decree and judgment bad if parties had understood each other's case for the purpose of adducing evidence. Similarly, when the Court below having appreciated such evidence, being adduced, the appellate court cannot simply remand the matter, without deciding the same on merits.
Madras High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 0 - S Tamilvanan - Full Document
1