Back
ASHOK S. KINAGI
Mohammed Abdul Basith – Appellant
Versus
W. S. rahman – Respondent
JUDGMENT
1. The petitioner being aggrieved by the order dtd. 2/9/2021 passed on I.A.Nos.3 and 4 in O.S.No.6780/2014 by the VII Additional City Civil Judge, Bengaluru (CCH-19), has filed this writ petition.
2. Brief facts leading rise to filing of this petition are as under:
The respondent has filed a suit in O.S.No.6780/2014 seeking for the relief of specific performance of contract. In the said suit, summons was issued by the Trial Court to the petitioner. The petitioner has refused to receive the summons. The Trial Court has placed the petitioner as exparte vide order dtd. 20/9/2014. The petitioner thereafter filed an application to set aside the exparte order dtd. 20/9/2014 and also sought for permission to file written statement and also filed an application to reopen the case. The Trial Court vide order dtd. 2/9/2021, has rejected the said applications. Hence, the petitioner has filed this writ petition.
3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for respondent.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Trial Court has committed an error in passing the impugned order. If the petitioner is permitted to participate in the proceedings, no injustice
In the interest of justice and equity, the Court may set aside an exparte order and provide an opportunity for the petitioner to participate in the proceedings by filing a written statement.
The court emphasized the necessity of granting a party an opportunity to present its case when absence is justified, reinforcing principles of fairness in legal proceedings.
Adequate reasons for delay, Fraudulent service of summons, Jurisdiction under Article 226 & 227
First Appeal—Long delay can be condoned where strong and significant grounds are furnished by petitioner to explain delay.
Ex-parte judgment – Ex-parte judgment should show the application of minimum requirement of consideration of the pleadings, issues, evidence and the relief sought for rendering such judgment - Litiga....
The provisions of Order 8 Rule 1 regarding filing written statements are directory, not mandatory, ensuring fair opportunity for both parties in legal proceedings.
The importance of a speaking order and the need for the Trial Court to apply its mind while considering applications for amendment, especially in cases involving subsequent developments after the ins....
The court may allow the restoration of suit proceedings if genuine reasons for non-appearance are presented and in the interest of Justice, granting one more opportunity to complete the proceedings.
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
