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

2007 Supreme(Del) 243

J.M.MALIK
Sanjay – Appellant
Versus
Kamlesh – Respondent


Advocates appeared:
For Appellant/Petitioner/Plaintiff: B.R. Bakshi and Deepak Sharma, Advs.
For Respondents/Defendant: Arvind Dhingra, Adv.

JUDGMENT

J.M. Malik, J.

1. Learned Trial Court dismissed the application under order 9 Rule 13 C.P.C. moved by the appellant, on 20.10.2006. Aggrieved by this order, first appeal has been preferred before this Court. Smt. Kamlesh, respondent filed a suit for possession, permanent injunction, mandatory injunction, damages and pendente lite mesne profits with interest. Learned Trial Court decreed the suit on 11.11.2005. This is an indisputable fact that the appellant who was arrayed as defendant No. 3 was served on 18.5.2005. He did not appear before the Court and thereforee he was proceeded against ex-parte.

2. The appellant has enumerated the following grounds in his application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC dated 18.10.2006. The respondent/plaintiff is his real sister. The appellant received Court notice of this case on 18.5.2005. He engaged Shri D.N. Pandey, Advocate, who assured the appellant that he would represent his case diligently. The appellant kept on enquiring from his advocate. On each time, the appellant was told that his case was being properly looked after. The above said advocate assured him that he would be called, whenever, his presence was required in the Court. The a









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