SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1995 Supreme(SC) 898

B.L.HANSARIA, K.RAMASWAMY
Commissioner, Religious And Charitable Endowments, Bangalore – Appellant
Versus
Kasliyappa Gurukula Sri Vidya Shala – Respondent


Advocates:
M.VIRAPPA

( 1 ) THOUGH the respondent has been served, he does not appear either in person or through counsel

( 2 ) LEAVE granted

( 3 ) ADMITTEDLY, the suit was filed in which the government was set ex parte and an ex parte decree was granted. Then the State filed an application to set aside the ex parte decree on 17/2/1984 and that petition was dismissed on the ground that the delay was not properly explained. The appeal was also dismissed by the High court

( 4 ) THE question is whether the State has properly given an explanation for not filing the application to set aside the ex parte decree within 30 days from the date of the knowledge. No notice required under Section 80 Civil Procedure Code was issued. In view of the fact that the office of the government was informed on 15/2/1984, the government must be deemed to have had notice of ex parte decree from that date and within three days thereafter the application was filed. Therefore, there was no delay

( 5 ) THE appeal is accordingly allowed. No costs

.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top