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

1991 Supreme(Del) 661

JASPAL SINGH
NAIRS ARKIMETALS PRIVATE LIMITED – Appellant
Versus
NEW DELHI HOTELS LIMITED – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
Navin Anand, S.K.MAHAJAN

Jaspal Siagh, J.

( 1 ) SUB Rules 3 and 4 of Rule 3 of Order 37 of,the Code of Civil Procedure and Form 4-A in Appendix-B have given cause to this order. However, first a bonsai view of the back-drop.

( 2 ) THE suit is under Older 37. Consequent upon service of summons in Form 4 in Appendix-B, the defendant entered its appearance and thereupon complied with the requirement of sub-Rule 3 of Rule 3. Turn then came for the plaintiff to proceed according to sub-Rule 4 and it really did so, inasmuch as summons for judgment in Form 4-A in Appendix-B was served on the defendant. As the summons holds the pivot, I must reproduce it. It says:

UPON reading the affidavit of the plaintiff the court makes the following order, namely: Let all parties concerned attend the court on the 25th day of January, 1991 at O clock in the forenoon on the hearing of the application of the plaintiff that he be at liberty to obtain judgment in this suit against the defendant (or if against one or some or several insert names) for Rs. 2,72,767. 35 P and for interest and costs. Dated the 21st day of November, 1990. SUPERINTENDENT (0) for REGISTRAR. "

( 3 ) AS all the gowns do know, under sub-Rule 5, the defendant i







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