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

1969 Supreme(Cal) 255

A.C.GUPTA
SURANJAN KANJILAL – Appellant
Versus
MALATI DUTT – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
A.K.MOTILAL, MANAN KUMAR GHOSH, SATYANARAYAN ROY

A. C. GUPTA, J.

( 1 ) AN application under Order 9, Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure made by the petitioner to set aside an ex parte decree for eviction passed against him was itself dismissed for default. The petitioner then applied under Section 151 of the Code to set aside the order of dismissal stating reasons for his non-appearance when the application under Order 9, Rule 13 was called on for hearing. The Court below dismissed the application under Section 151 on the ground that as the Code provides an appeal from an order dismissing an application under Order 9, Rule 13. the application under Section 151 was not maintainable. The legality of this last order is in question in this Rule.

( 2 ) MR. A. K. Motilal learned Advocate for the petitioner, raised two contentions to show that the order passed by the learned Munsif was wrong. Mr. Motilal submitted, first, that the order dismissing for default the application under Order 9, Rule 13 was not appealable and, secondly, even if the order was appealable this did not preclude the Court from setting aside the order of dismissal in exercise of its inherent power, if on the facts of the case the Court thought that it was nec




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