Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

M/S. XLO INDIA LTD. versus SUDHIR SAGAR

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


M/S. Xlo India Ltd. v. Sudhir Sagar - CIVIL REVISION No. 211 of 2007 [2007] RD-AH 13397 (2 August 2007)

 

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

Hon. Janardan Sahai,J

A suit for rent and ejectment was instituted against the applicant which was decreed ex parte on 23.1.99 An application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC was filed by the applicant which was rejected by the trial court by its impugned order dated 12.4.99. The case of the applicant was that on 10.1.99 the date fixed for filing written statement his counsel had gone to Allahabad and therefore the written statement could not be filed and on 13.1.199 and an adjournment was sought as the applicant had gone to Jaipur but the application for adjournment was rejected and an order to proceed ex parte was passed on 13.1.99. The suit was decreed on 23.1.99. In the objections to the application under Order 9, Rule 13 CPC, it was stated by the respondent that the plea taken by the applicant that his counsel had gone out of station on 10.1.99  is false as the counsel was very much present in the local courts on 10.1.99. The trial court has observed that no rebuttal of this averment made by the respondent was made by the applicant.  The trial court has given a reference of the various dates on which the applicant had sought adjournment The finding of the trial court is that the applicant had taken about 13-14 adjournments for filing the written statement and was gratned sufficient opportunity but no written statement was filed and the applicant was delaying the matter. . Counsel for the applicant submitted that this observation of the trial court that the applicant had taken 13-14 adjournments is incorrect and actually the applicant had taken only 7 adjournments, namely on 1.4.98, 12.8.98, 16.9.98, 25.11.98, 4.12.98, 14.12.98 and 21.12.98. Even these adjournments show that the applicant was granted ample opportunity. Even earlier on 25.9.98 an order directing the suit to proceed ex parte was passed against the applicant but was set aside on 30.10.88 but he was delaying the proceedings. In the circumstances it is clear that sufficient cause for absence had not been shown and also  that the petitioner was granted sufficient opportunity to file the written statement. The order rejecting the application under Order 9, Rule 13 CPC does not suffer from any illegality. Dismissed.

2.8.07sm

cr 211/07


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.