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

DELHI HIGH COURT
S.N.KAPOOR
Lakhmi Chand – Appellant
Versus
Parmananda Khemka – Respondent


JUDGMENT

S.N. Kapoor, J. (Oral)--This revision petition is directed against an order under Section 35-B of the Code of Civil Procedure holding that the plaintiff had no right to further prosecute the case for his failure to pay costs of Rs. 100/-, and dismissing the suit.

2. Briefly facts giving rise to the present petition are as under:

3. It appears from the order sheet that on 14th January 1985, learned counsel for the plaintiff requested to give a date for evidence and the case was adjourned subject to payment of costs of Rs. 100/-, to 6th February 1985. On 6th February 1985, the plaintiff's counsel was not ready to pay the costs on the ground that the plaintiff did not want to produce the evidence as certified copy of form 'A' had already been filed. It was also clarified that the cost was imposed for adjournment of hearing and copy of form 'A' along with the application was filed after the case was adjourned on 14th January 1985. Thus it appears that plaintiff failed to pay the cost on the next date i.e. 6th February 1985. Despite the request of the counsel for defendant to dismiss the suit, learned Trial Court adjourned the case for arguments on the point of dismissal of

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