Garuda Venakata Krishna Murthy v. Garuda Mahalakshmi

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE S.V. BHATT C.R.P.No.839 OF 2013 ORDER:

Defendant is the revision petitioner.

The plaintiff filed O.S.No.12 of 2007 for recovery of money. The trial Court by judgment dated 03.06.2009 dismissed the suit. Aggrieved by the same, the plaintiff preferred appeal in A.S.No.16 of 2009. The appellate Court on consideration of the evidence on record allowed the appeal by setting aside the judgment in O.S.No.12 of 2007, against which the instant revision at the instance of defendant.

After perusing the findings recorded by the appellate Court, this Court in agreement with the findings recorded by the appellate Court. I am satisfied that no ground warranting interference is made out.

Revision fails and is, accordingly, dismissed. After dismissal of the revision, learned counsel for the revision petitioner seeks some time to discharge the decretal debt. Hence, the stay on 22.02.2013 is extended by three more months from today. In default, the plaintiff is at liberty to proceed in accordance with law. There shall be no order as to costs.

Consequently, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, stand closed.

____________ S.V.BHATT, J 12th September, 2018 Lrkm