Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details


High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation


M/S Key Corporation Ltd. v. Shiv Charan Lal - WRIT - C No. 8970 of 2007 [2007] RD-AH 3698 (2 March 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).


Hon. Pankaj Mithal, J.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing counsel.

The respondent had filed original suit No. 24 of 1998 in the Court of Civil Judge, Senior Division, Firozabad against the petitioner for mandatory injunction with regard to the submission of accounts concerning advancement of loan for purchasing a motor vehicle. The said suit was decreed ex-parte on 30.10.2004. The petitioner applied under Order IX Rule 13 of C.P.C. for setting aside the ex-parte decree along with the application to condone the delay in filing the same. The petitioner simultaneously also moved an application for stay of ex-parte decree in as much as the respondent was proceeding with the execution of the said decree in the court at Kanpur where it was transferred. On the delay condonation application the Court on 28th November 2006 directed for issuing of notice to the respondent fixing 1st February 2006. Since the delay condonation application could not be heard and decided, the Court refused to pass any interim order on the said application as moved by the petitioner. Aggrieved by the order, the petitioner preferred Civil Revision and the same has been dismissed by the Incharge, District Judge vide impugned judgment and order dated 18.1.2007.

Learned counsel for the petitioner in assailing the said judgment & order and the order dated 2.1.2007 refusing to grant the stay has contended that the matter is urgent as the execution of the ex-parte decree is continue against him. The Court below is not deciding the application for condoning the delay and in turn the stay application, on account of which he is suffering irreparable loss and injury.

In the facts and circumstances of the case, there is no purpose to keep the petition pending. The writ petition is therefore, being disposed of with the direction to the Trial Court to consider and decide the delay condonation application of the petitioner in filing the application under Order IX Rule 13 as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of one month from the date of production of the certified copy of this order and thereafter to dispose of the stay application on merits in accordance with law. The Trial Court is at liberty to finally decide the petitioner's application under order IX Rule 13 of the C.P.C. expeditiously if possible.

With the aforesaid observation, the writ petition is disposed of.

Dt. 2.3.07

S.S. 8970/07


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


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 |

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