Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

JAG SHARAN SHARMA versus BALJEET SINGH AND OTHERS

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Jag Sharan Sharma v. Baljeet Singh And Others - WRIT - C No. 4587 of 2006 [2006] RD-AH 3083 (10 February 2006)

 

This is an UNCERTIFIED copy for information/reference. For authentic copy please refer to certified copy only. In case of any mistake, please bring it to the notice of Joint Registrar(Copying).

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ALLAHABAD

Court No. 23

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 4587 of 2006

Jag Saran.......................................................................................Petitioner

Vs.

Baljeet Singh and others...........................................................Respondents

*******

Hon'ble Umeshwar Pandey, J.

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contends that the suit was ordered to proceed exparte by the trial court vide its order dated 27.7.2005. Prior to that a suit was filed on 9.9.2003 and after the summons were served upon the defendants/respondents they appeared before the trial court on 22.9.2003, but since then they had been seeking time on all successive dates for filing the written statement in the case, but they did not do so and finally on 27.11.2003 they absented and the case was ordered to proceed exparte vide order dated 27.7/2004. The exparte evidence was also completed on 4.2.2005 and the date for arguments were fixed, but meanwhile on 17.2.2005 an application was moved by the defendants/respondents for recalling the order dated 27.7.2004 whereby the suit was proceeding exparte. The trial court has rejected this application on several grounds including that the application was not supported with an affidavit and the contentions as made in the said application were not established by any evidence.

The revisional court has allowed the revision simply on the ground that since the defendants wanted to contest the suit they should be given an opportunity for the same and thus, the order for the suit to proceed exparte was set aside and the application was allowed. The learned counsel submits that the order of the revisional court is wholly against law and the amended provision of Order VIII Rule 1 C.P.C.

Issue notice to the respondents returnable within six weeks.

List thereafter.

Meanwhile, further proceedings in Original Suit No. 991 of 2003, pending before the trial court shall remain suspended.

10.02.2006

SUA


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.