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

2009 Supreme(Kar) 368

K.BHAKTHAVATSALA
M. Narayana Reddy – Appellant
Versus
H. C. Venkatesh – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner:Mahaabaleswar Goud, Advocate.
For the Respondent:R.S. Ravi, Advocate.

Judgment :

Dr. Bhakthavatsala, J.

1. The appellant/plaintiff in O.S.No.2724/2003 on the file of Additional City Civil Judge at Bangalore city, is before this Court under Section 96 of CPC, praying for setting aside the Judgment and Decree dated 09.11.2005. made in the above said suit.

2. The brief facts of the case leading to the filing of the appeal may be stated as under:

The appellant/plaintiff filed a suit in O.S.No. 2724/2003 on the file of city civil Judge at Bangalore city, against the respondent for recovery of money of Rs.2,59,518/- with interest at the rate of 24% p.a. In spite of service of summons on the defendant, he remained absent. On service of notice, the counsel for the defendant filed vakalath on 20.12.2003. But written statement was not filed within a period of 90 days. Permission was sought for filing written statement. The application filed by the defendant seeking permission to file written statement was rejected on the ground that the Trial Court had no Jurisdiction to condone the delay. On 02.09.2004, an application (I.A.No.IV) was filed under Order VII Rule 11(d) and Section 151 of CPC, praying the Court to reject the plaint on the ground that the suit was











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