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

2003 Supreme(AP) 604

R.M.BAPAT
Pasupuleti Subba Rao – Appellant
Versus
Nandavarapu Anjaneyulu – Respondent


R. M. BAPAT, J.

( 1 ) THE petitioner herein was the plaintiff in O. S. No. 177 of 2001, which was pending on the file of the First Additional Junior Civil Judge, Guntur. The plaintiff-respondent herein filed the aforesaid suit for recovery of certain amount. During the pendency of the suit, the plaintiff-respondent herein was absent in the trial Court and therefore the suit was dismissed for default. Thereafter the plaintiff filed I. A. No. 1346 of 2002 for setting aside the order of default and restored the suit to file. In the aforesaid I. A. the counsel appearing for the plaintiff filed his own affidavit and the suit was restored to file. Against the said order, the present revision has been filed.

( 2 ) HEARD the learned counsel for the petitioner.

( 3 ) THE practice of Advocate filing his affidavit in a petition filed under Order 9, Rule 9, CPC is totally wrong and illegal. Such practice has to be deprecated. Order 9, Rule 9 or Order 9, Rule 13, CPC contemplates that the application has to be filed by the party concerned only and not by the counsel. The counsel only is permitted to represent his client; he cannot step into the shoes of a client. Admittedly this order passed by


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