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

1969 Supreme(Cal) 183

P.N.MUKHERJEE, AMIYA KUMAR MUKHERJI
JADABENDRA NATH MISHRA – Appellant
Versus
MANORAMA DEBYA – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
BINODE BHUSAN ROY, M.B.MALIK, Rabindra Nath Mitra, SWADESH BHUSAN BHUNIA

P. N. MOOKERJEE, A. C. J.

( 1 ) THIS Rule was obtained against an order of the learned trial Judge, dismissing the petitioner's application under Sections 148 and 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure upon the view that, in the circumstances of this case, the Court had, as a matter of law, no power to extend the time, as prayed for in the said application.

( 2 ) BROADLY speaking, the relevant facts are as follows: The original suit for partition was decreed ex parte. Thereafter, the present petitioner, who was a defendant in the said suit, made an application for setting aside the said ex parte decree under Order 9, Rule 13, of the Code of Civil Procedure. This gave rise to the Misc. case in question and, in the said Misc. case, the parties eventually came to terms and filed a petition of compromise, under which the petitioner was to pay a certain amount within a certain time to have the Misc. case allowed and the suit restored to file after the setting aside of the relative ex parte decree. There was also a default clause providing, inter alia, that, in case the above payment was not made within the specified time, the Misc. case would stand dismissed and the ex parte decree in que






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