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

1984 Supreme(Kar) 117

D.R.VITHAL RAO, M.N.VENKATACHALIAH
STATE OF KARNATAKA – Appellant
Versus
HEMARAJ ACHALCHAND – Respondent


Advocates:
Mohini S.Bhandarkar

VENKATACHALIAH, J.

( 1 ) THIS appeal is by the State of Karnataka and is directed against the decree dated 17. 1. 1974 decreeing respondent-plaintiffs suit for recovery of Rs. 30,110. 35, together with interest and costs, said to be the price of goods supplied to the appellant-defendant.

( 2 ) THE suit stood posted to 17-1-1974 for the appearance of the defendant and settlement of issues. Appellant-defendant was served with the summonses in the suit on 3. 1. 1974. On 17. 1. 1974 defendant failed to appear and the suit was decreed. The note in the order sheet reads: "defendent absent. Placed exparte. Suit decreed as prayed for. "'

( 3 ) THIS appeal requires to be allowed on a short-point. Order VIII Rule 5 (1) C. P. C. provides that any allegation of fact in the plaint, if not denied specifically. or by necessary implication or atleast stated to be not admitted in the pleading of the defendent, shall be taken to be admitted. This provision deals with a case where a written statement is filed but does not "traverse" an allegation of fact either expressly or by necessary implication or does not even stated that the allegation is not admitted. Rule 5 (2), which deals with a. situation w






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