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

1996 Supreme(Pat) 698

N.PANDEY
Dinesh Chandra Jha – Appellant
Versus
Anil Kumar Jha – Respondent


Judgment

N.Pandey, J.

1. This civil revision application has been directed against an order dated 23.12.1988 in Misc. Appeal No. 26 of 1985 also the order dated 26.3.1986 in Misc. Case No. 42 of 1979, whereby the learned Sub-ordinate Judge refused to set aside the ex-parte decree in Money Suit No. 56 of 1978.

2. Short facts of this case are these: The plaintiffs field Money Suit No. 56 of 1978 for adjudication that there was no reasonable cause for the defendants to institute the criminal case and, therefore, a decree for realisation of Rs. 5, 1000.00 to compensate the alleged malicious prosecution be passed. Since the defendants did not appear, the suit was fixed on 17.1.1979 for ex-parte hearing. The matter was heard on that day. The Court fixed 18.1.1979 for final orders. But on 18.1.1979 two petitioners were filed on behalf of the defendants; one for adjournment of the case and the other to recall the order, fixing the case for ex-parte hearing. The learned court after hearing the parties fixed 19.2.1979 for orders. But on that day since another petition was filed on behalf of the defendants for time, the court pronounced order on 24.1.1979.

3. The grievance of the petitioners i









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