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

2012 Supreme(Kar) 618

JAWAD RAHIM, V.SURI APPA RAO
B. R. Venkatesh – Appellant
Versus
Manjunath – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant :Ramesh Adithya, Advocate.

Judgment :-

1. This is an appeal filed Under Section 96 of the CPC assailing the judgment passed against the appellant.

2. The main ground urged in this appeal is that because of certain reasons beyond his control, the appellant could not appear and contest the case before the trial Court. In other words, the appellant is trying to contend that he has sufficient cause to show that he could not appear before the trial Court. If that be so, then the appellant had to actually approach the trial Court under Rule 13 of Order IX seeking to set-aside the ex-parte decree. In stead, such a ground is urged in an appeal filed Under Section 96 of the CPC.

3. Section 96 of the CPC permits an appellate Court to re-appraise the evidence for ascertainment as to finding of the trial Court is just, based on the evidence lead in support of the issues. Therefore, the grounds urged in the appeal do not fall Under Section 96 of the CPC, but does fall under Order IX and various Rules thereunder. Hence, the appellant permitted to withdraw this appeal and approach the trial Court with such an appeal.

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