December, 2019 (Annexure-11) passed by learned
Senior Civil Judge, Bhubaneswar in CMA No.31 of 2018 filed under
Order IX Rule ... Within thirty days
thereafter, the petition under Order IX Rule 13 CPC (CMA No.31 of
2018) was filed. The Plaintiff/Petitioner
order of temporary injunction. It was challenged before District Court in CMA No. 241/02, 242/02 and 243/02. On 6.1.03 the appeals were ... resolution taken in the meeting is invalid, the relief granted in the CMA was beyond the prayers. this Court restored the order of Munsiff
21687/2022 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 11/11/2022
CMA along with the application for seeking the interim reliefs
before the Commercial Court under Section ... challenge before this
Court under Article 226. According to the petitioner, the CMA
is not maintainable and therefore, the impugned order passed
thereunder is without
Constitution of
India challenges the judgment and order dated 16.02.2019
passed in CMA No.164 of 2018 passed by the learned ... days occurred in preferring first appeal and
therefore, application being CMA No.164 of 2018 under section 5
of the Limitation Act was preferred
unfiled CMA on the file of the Principal District Court, Erode.
For Petitioner
:
Mr.N.Manokaran
For Respondents
:
No Appearance
ORDER
This revision is directed ... declining to condone the delay of 1300 days in filing the CMA.
2. The petitioner is the appellant in an un-numbered CMA filed
brother of colonel
N.K.Anklesariya in its record; that on 3.3.2001, CMA
No.607 of 2000 which is filed for granting of letter ... revocation of probate; that
thereafter on 12.10.2017, the petitioner preferred
application being CMA No.516 of 2017 seeking
condonation of delay in preferring application under
merits under Ext.P6. Impugning Ext.P6, the petitioner filed
CMA No.13 of 2005. But the above CMA was not filed ... delay of 491 days in the matter of filing the CMA. The learned
Subordinate Judge was not very much inspired by the explanation
offered
petitioner company filed an appeal before the Land Tribunal in LT CMA No.86 of 1991. The appeal was allowed on 04.05.1992 and the matter
wrong in overlooking the fact that there was already an appeal in CMA No. 1 of 2018 filed before the Sub-Court at Tuticorin under
Court, Namakkal. Against the said order, 4th respondent filed CMA No.3 of 2007 which was dismissed by the Additional District Judge, Namakkal. The respondents ... appeal in CMA No.3 of 2007 filed by the 4th respondent was dismissed. The respondents 1 to 4 have not mentioned these facts
