Skip to content


Thummalapalli Venkatakrishnayya Vs. Thummalapalli Sayamma and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtChennai
Decided On
Reported inAIR1926Mad958
AppellantThummalapalli Venkatakrishnayya
RespondentThummalapalli Sayamma and ors.
Cases ReferredMohammad Ayub v. Mohammad Mahmud
Excerpt:
- waller, j.1. it is argued that no revision petition lies: vide mohammad ayub v. mohammad mahmud [1910] 32 all. 623. i am not prepared to follow the distinction laid down in that decision.2. i am afraid that this application must be allowed. applicant has let in no evidence of her pauperism and has not even presented herself for cross-examination. the order is set aside, and the application will be re-heard, each party to let in such evidence as it has pro and con. costs of this petition will abide the result.
Judgment:

Waller, J.

1. It is argued that no revision petition lies: vide Mohammad Ayub v. Mohammad Mahmud [1910] 32 All. 623. I am not prepared to follow the distinction laid down in that decision.

2. I am afraid that this application must be allowed. Applicant has let in no evidence of her pauperism and has not even presented herself for cross-examination. The order is set aside, and the application will be re-heard, each party to let in such evidence as it has pro and con. Costs of this petition will abide the result.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //