Subsequent purchaser sought leave to file revision against an ex parte decree enforcing a voucher treated as an agreement for sale. The court, noting the disputed agreement and the need to decide the issue on merits, granted leave and directed the Registry to number the petition.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
CMP NO. 28352 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 19-12-2024
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE N. SATHISH KUMAR
CMP NO. 28352 of 2024
in CRP.SR.No.141078 of 2024
S.Sethuraman Petitioner(s)
Vs
C.Krishnalal Respondent(s)
For Petitioner(s): Mr.R.Harikrishnan
ORDER
This petition has been filed seeking leave to the petitioner to file the instant revision, since, he is a third part to the proceedings.
without any reasons. The decree and judgment does not contain any reasons. According to
the petitioner, he is the subsequent purchaser of the property and the very agreement itself
is disputed. Therefore, sought leave of this Court in filing this revision as against the
judgment and decree dated 18.06.2008.
N.SATHISH KUMAR, J.
20.09.2004, this Court is of the view that in order to decide the issue on merits, leave has
to be granted.
19-12-2024
dhk
(Note: Registry is directed to number the petition, if it is otherwise in order. )
1 issue framed by the court
Whether leave should be granted to a third-party subsequent purchaser to file a civil revision against an ex parte decree enforcing an alleged agreement of sale?
S.Sethuraman
C.Krishnalal
N. Sathish Kumar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
