S.Settu v. Krishnan
Case brief
What is this about?
This revision petition was allowed after setting aside a lower court order that dismissed an interlocutory application on jurisdiction grounds. The High Court directed the trial court to decide the pecuniary jurisdiction as a preliminary issue before proceeding further.
What did the court decide?
Civil Revision Petition allowed; order of I.A.No.679 of 2011 set aside; trial court directed to decide pecuniary jurisdiction as Preliminary Issue within one month.
What the court decided
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Reserved on : 31.08.2016
Pronounced on : 21.10.2016
CORAM
The Hon'ble Mr.Justice M.V.MURALIDARAN
CRP(PD)No.1117 of 2012 and M.P.No.1 of 2012 and Caveat No.138 of 2012
1.S.Settu
2.S.Ramani
3.Lakshmi
… Petitioners
Versus
1.Krishnan
Issues for consideration
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the trial court correctly dismissed the application without first deciding the issue of pecuniary jurisdiction as directed by the High Court.
Whether the trial court is bound to decide the question of pecuniary jurisdiction as a preliminary issue before proceeding to other merits.
Whether the trial court properly recast the issue regarding valuation and jurisdiction as per the High Court's order.
Parties & counsel
- petitioner
S.Settu
- petitioner
S.Ramani
- petitioner
Lakshmi
- respondent
Krishnan
Coram
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court