P.Ratnam v. Nanjammal

C.M.P.No.145 of 2012 in S.A.No.1567 of 2002 P.T.Asha, J.

The above petition is filed to receive two letters sent by the 4th and 5th respondents to the appellant. The same is sought to be filed primarily to showcase that the counter filed by one P.Sellakutty in C.M.P.No.464 of 2011 on behalf of respondents 4 and 5 is not an authorised one.

2. Mr.C.R.Prasanan, learned counsel for the respondents 4 and 5 would oppose the said petition. However, considering the limited scope of the petition, namely, whether the deponent in the counter affidavit had been authorised to file the affidavit on behalf of the respondents 4 and 5 for whom Mr.C.R.Prasanan appears, the same may be ordered. Accordingly, the petition is allowed. It is needless to state that the same is subject to proof. 05.01.2023 kan https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

P.T.Asha, J.

Kan C.M.P.No.145 of 2012 05.01.2023 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis