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

1994 Supreme(Del) 768

R.C.LAHOTI
SARLA DEVI – Appellant
Versus
DAYA RAM – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
Dharambir Singh, SANDiP SETHI

Mr. R. C. Lahoti, J.

( 1 ) IN a suit purporting to have been filed under Order37 of the Civil Procedure Code the defendants have been served. They have failed to put inappearance within the meaning of Order 37 Rule 2, Sub Rule 3. An applicationstyled as under Section 148 Civil Procedure Code and Section 5 of the Limitation Act read with Section 151 Civil Procedure Code has been filed seeking condonation of delay in putting in appearance. The application has been opposed vehemently by the plaintiffs Counsel submitting that the Court does not have jurisdiction to extend the time statutorily appointed for putting in appearance by the defendants.

( 2 ). It is not necessary to dispose of the contending contentions raised touching the application filed by the defendant because having heard the learned Counsel for the parties this Court has formed an opinion that the suit itself is not triable under Order 37 Civil Procedure Code and so the question of putting in any appearance and seeking leave to defend by the defendants does not arise.

( 3 ). The defendants Nos. 1 and 2 and Late Rej Ram, the deceased father of the defendants Nos. 3 and 4 had entered into an agreement to sell an immovab







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