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

1993 Supreme(Del) 466

SAT PAL
KIRANJIT SINGH – Appellant
Versus
MADAN LAL KHANNA – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
MAHENDRA RANA, VINOD SRIVASTAVA

SAT PAL, J.

( 1 ) THIS is a suit for recovery of a sum of Rs. l4,62,000. 00 with interest pendente life and future interest at the rate of 24 per cent per annum. Though initially the suit was filed as an ordinary one, the plaintiff moved an application bearing IA No. 1390/92 under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the Code ) for amendment of the plaint and prayed that the suit be treated as one under Order 37 of the Code. The said application was allowed and the suit has been treated as one under Order 37 of the Code.

( 2 ) AFTER the service of the summons Mr. Vinod Kumar, Advocate put in appearance on behalf of the defendant before the Joint Registrar on 25th May, 1992. He also undertook to file power of attorney along with memo of appearance shortly.

( 3 ) IN terms of order dated 23rd November, 1992 passed by the Joint Registrar, summons for judgment issued against the defendant for 27th September, 1992 were duly served on the said defendant on 24th August, 1992. Since no application for leave to defend the suit was filed by the defendant within the statutory period, the case was fixed before the Court on 2nd March, 1993, on which date th













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