Back
MANOJ KUMAR OHRI
Zafar Badyari – Appellant
Versus
Sandeep Singh – Respondent
Certainly. Here are the key points derived from the provided legal document:
The appeal was filed under Order 43 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC) and involved the challenge to an order dismissing an application filed under Order 37 Rule 4 of CPC to set aside an ex-parte decree (!) (!) .
The court permitted the condonation of delay of 150 days in filing the appeal under the Limitation Act, with the respondent not opposing this delay (!) (!) .
A preliminary objection was raised that an appeal under Order 43 Rule 1 CPC is not maintainable against an order passed under Order 37 Rule 4 CPC (!) (!) .
The court clarified that an appeal under Order 43 Rule 1 CPC does not have the statutory authority to challenge orders passed under Order 37 Rule 4 CPC, which specifically deals with setting aside ex-parte decrees in summary proceedings (!) .
The court emphasized that the provisions of Order 37 CPC are distinct from those of Order 9 Rule 13 CPC, and the procedure and appeals under these provisions are not interchangeable (!) .
The court highlighted that the purpose of Order 37 is to facilitate an expeditious trial and disposal of commercial suits, and its provisions, including Rule 4, are specific in their scope, particularly relating to setting aside decrees and granting leave to defend (!) (!) .
Based on the legal framework and the specific provisions, the court upheld the preliminary objection, ruling that the appeal was not maintainable against the order passed under Order 37 Rule 4 CPC, and therefore, dismissed the appeal (!) .
The appellant was advised that they could seek an appropriate remedy in accordance with law, but the current appeal was not sustainable under the existing legal provisions (!) .
The court did not consider the merits of the case but focused solely on the issue of maintainability of the appeal (!) .
Please let me know if you need further analysis or specific legal advice based on these points.
JUDGMENT :
(Manoj Kumar Ohri, J.) :—
CM APPL. 45911/2022 (Delay)
1. The present application has been filed under the Limitation Act on behalf of the appellant seeking condonation of delay of 150 days in filing the appeal.
2. Learned counsel for the respondent fairly does not oppose the prayer made in the present application.
3. In view of the above, the application is allowed and the delay of 150 days in filing the appeal is condoned.
4. The application is disposed of.
FAO 269/2022 & CM APPL. 45912/2022(stay)
5. By way of present appeal filed under Order 43 Rule 1 read with Section 104 CPC, the appellant/defendant seeks to impugn the order dated 10.02.2022 passed by the learned ADJ-09 (Central), Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi in M. No. 72/2022, dismissing the Appellant's application filed under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC to set aside an ex-parte decree dated 04.10.2021 passed by the court in a summary suit filed under Order 37 CPC.
6. The facts, as borne out from the records, are that the respondent/plaintiff had filed the underlying suit i.e. CS No. 461/2021 under Order 37 CPC seeking permanent & mandatory injunction as well as recovery of possession, license fees and damages of Rs. 13,30,000/-. In th
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
