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

2016 Supreme(Pat) 1332

MUNGESHWAR SAHOO
Hriday Narayan Kumar – Appellant
Versus
Jaya Singh – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr. Najmul Hoda

ORDER :

Mungeshwar Sahoo, J.

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the respondents.

2. Perused the impugned order dated 02.07.2016 passed by Sub Judge III, Buxar in Miscellaneous Case No. 11 of 2010 whereby the learned Court below has rejected the application filed by the present petitioner under Order 7, Rule 11 (a) C.P.C.

3. It appears that partition suit was filed by the present petitioner. The suit was decreed ex parte against defendant No.1. Thereafter, the respondent No.1 herein Smt. Jaya Singh filed the application under Order 9, Rule 13 C.P.C. before the Court below for setting aside the ex parte decree against defendant No.1, Upendra Kumar on the ground that she is the power of attorney holder of defendant No.1 and the judgment and decree has been passed against said Upendra Kumar.

4. This petitioner filed application before the Court below for rejection of the said miscellaneous case on the ground that it is not maintainable at the instance of Jaya Singh who is purchaser from Upendra Kumar, defendant No.1. The said application was rejected against which CWJC No. 12196 of 2014 was filed. This Court in CWJC No. 12196 of 2014 by terms of order













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