Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
R.C. LAHOTI, CJI., G.P. MATHUR, J.
BHARAT SINGH AND OTHERS - APPELLANTS
VERSUS
NARENDER KUMAR AND OTHERS - RESPONDENTS
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 6803 OF 2004,
DECIDED ON OCTOBER 15, 2004
Civil Procedure Code, 1908, Section 115 and Order 9, Rule 13 - Revisional jurisdiction - Trial Court set aside ex parte decree - All the factors relevant for exercising discretion considered- Held High Court erred in setting aside the said order exercising revisional jurisdiction- Order of the High Court set aside.[Para 2]
ORDER
1. LEAVE GRANTED.
2. AN EX PARTE DECREE FOR SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE OF AN AGREEMENT TO SELL WAS SET ASIDE BY THE TRIAL COURT. A PERUSAL OF THE ORDER OF THE TRIAL COURT SHOWS THAT ALL THE FACTORS RELEVANT FOR EXERCISING DISCRETION IN FAVOUR OF THE APPLICANT IN THE MATTER OF CONDONING THE DELAY IN MOVING THE APPLICATION AND FINDING OUT SUFFICIENT CAUSE FOR SETTING ASIDE THE DECREE WERE KEPT IN VIEW. THE HIGH COURT HAS, HOWEVER, IN EXERCISE OF REVISIONAL JURISDICTION INTERFERED WITH THE ORDER OF THE TRIAL COURT WHICH, IN OUR OPINION, WITHIN THE LIMITED JURISDICTION AVAILABLE UNDER SECTION 115 CPC SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DONE. ORDINARILY, A LITIGANT SHOULD NOT BE DENIED THE LIBERTY OF CONTESTING THE CASE ON MERITS.
3. THE APPEAL IS ALLOWED. JUDGMENT OF THE HIGH COURT IS SET ASIDE AND THAT OF THE TRIAL COURT IS RESTORED.
4. THERE IS SOME CONTROVERSY WHETHER IN EXECUTION OF EX PARTE DECREE, POSSESSION WAS DELIVERED FROM THE JUDGMENT-DEBTOR TO THE DECREE-HOLDER BY THE EXECUTING COURT. IF THE TRIAL COURT FINDS THAT THE DELIVERY OF POSSESSION HAD 9 TAKEN PLACE IN EXECUTION PROCEEDINGS THEN AND THEN ALONE POSSESSION OF THE PLAINTIFF OVER THE SUIT PROPERTY MAY BE MAINTAINED DURING THE PENDENCY OF THE SUIT; ELSE THE COURT MAY MAKE SUCH INTERIM ORDER AS IT MAY DEEM FIT TO MAKE.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
