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

1995 Supreme(Bom) 433

R.M.LODHA
Dhanraj Lilaram Motwani and another – Appellant
Versus
Rajendra Kumar Dayachand Jain and others – Respondent


JUDGMENT - R.M. LODHA, J. :---Heard Shri J.N. Chandurkar, learned Counsel for the applicants.

2. Shri Chandurkar submits that the discretion exercised by the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Gondia, in refusing to grant adjournment was not proper and not in consonance with the principles of natural justice.

3. Before considering the question raised by Shri Chandurkar, some facts may be noted.

One Dayachand Jain filed a suit for possession, arrears of rent and damages against the present applicants and the said suit was filed after he obtained permission of the Rent Controller to determine the tenancy of the tenants. The suit for possession, arrears of rent and damages was decreed on 13-1-1991 and an application for determination of mense profits was filed under Order XX, Rule 12 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short C.P.C.). The said proceedings under Order XX, Rule 12 C.P.C. continued and from time to time the applicants sought time. On 21-7-1994, since by that time the judgment-debtors had sought lot of adjournments, the trial Court granted adjournment as a last chance at the request of the present applicants and fixed the case on 4-8-1994. On 4-8-1994 again an application was fil













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