NIRENDRA KRISHNA MITRA, DILIP KUMAR BASU
NARAYAN MUKHERJEE – Appellant
Versus
KRISHNA DAY – Respondent
( 2 ) SUBSEQUENTLY, the wife/caveator/opposite party filed an application under Order IX Rule 13 read with section 151 of the Code of Civil procedure together with an application under section 5 of the Limitation Act for setting aside the aforesaid ex-parle decreed on condonation of delay, alleging inter alia, that no summons of the suit was served upon her and the ex-parte decree was obtained by the husband/petitioner by suppression of summons and by forging the signatures of the wife/caveator/opposite party on the service return of summons and also on the acknowledgement card and she had no previous knowledge of the suit prior to 29th1 April. 1993 and 30th April, 1993, and the same gave rise to Misc. Case No. 7 of 1993.
( 3 ) IN the said Misc. Case, the wife/opposite party filed an application for appointment of a handwriting expert for comparing and/or examining the
REFERRED TO : State (Delhi Administration) v Pali Ram
Sasi Kumar Banerjee and Ors v Subodh Kumar Banerjee and Ors
Gannamaneedi Madhavayya and Ors. v. Gannamaneedi Achamma (since deceased), and Anr.
Manindra Chandra Laha v. Mahaluxmi Bank Ltd.
Sri Kishore Chandra Singh Deo v. Babu Ganesh Prasad Bhagat and Ors.
Fazaluddin Mondal v. Panchanan Das
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.