LALIT MOHAN GUPTA versus ASHOK KUMAR

High Court of Rajasthan

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

---

LALIT MOHAN GUPTA v ASHOK KUMAR - CR Case No. 121 of 2007 [2007] RD-RJ 3983 (16 August 2007)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT

JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR

S.B. Civil Revision Petition 121/2007

Lalit Mohan Gupta Vs. Ashok Kumar Saini

Date of Judgment :: 16th August, 2007

Hon'ble Dr. Vineet Kothari, J.

Mr.A.K. Pareek for the petitioner.

This revision petition is directed against the order dated 7.7.2007 passed by the learned trial Court whereby the learned trial

Court allowed the application under Order 9 Rule 13 C.P.C. on the condition of imposition of cost of Rs.1,000/- and set aside the judgment and decree dated 26.8.2004 in a money recovery suit.

Learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. A.K. Pareek, relying upon the judgments in the case of State of Orissa Vs. Dhaniram

Luhar (2004) 5 SCC 568, Ramesh Chand Vs. Janaknandan

Saxena & Ors. (2007) WLC (Raj.) U.C. 379 and Ghanchi Rubina

Salimbhai Vs. Metubha Diwansingh Solanki & Ors. (2003) 7 SCC 183, has submitted that the learned trial Court has not assigned any reason for allowing the application under Order 9 Rule 13 C.P.C. and, therefore, the impugned order deserves to be set aside.

Having gone through the impugned order and considering the submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner and having gone through the judgments cited by the bar, this Court is of the opinion that there is no force in this revision petition and the same deserves to be dismissed. It is true that reasons ought to have been recorded by the learned trial Court for allowing the said application in the light of the judgments cited by learned counsel for the petitioner, but it appears from the facts of the case that the defendant had put in appearance before the learned trial Court and the case was at the stage of cross-examination of the plaintiff's witnesses and thereafter, the defendant did not appear for certain reasons. The trial Court having appreciated all the facts came to the conclusion that an opportunity to the defendant to argue the case could be afforded compensating the plaintiff by cost of Rs.1,000/-. The said order appears to be just and proper and, therefore, is not required to be interfered with in revisional jurisdiction under Section 115 C.P.C.

Consequently, this revision petition being devoid of merit is, hereby, dismissed. [Dr. Vineet Kothari],J.

S.S.

Jr.P.A.

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 |

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