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
PRATHIBA M.SINGH
Mukesh Kumar – Appellant
Versus
M.P. Madan – Respondent


JUDGMENT

Prathiba M. Singh, J. (Oral) CM APPL. 7892/2018(CM For Restoration)

1. This is an application under Order XLI Rule 19 filed on behalf of Appellant/Defendant (hereinafter Defendant). Counsel for the Defendant has submitted that due to his ill health, he could not appear on 15th February, 2018. Therefore, the judgment passed on 15th February, 2018 deserves to be recalled. A perusal of the order sheet of this file shows that as recorded in order dated 16th February, 2017 repeated adjournments were sought by the Defendant. The said order dated 16th February 2017, reads as under:

    "1. Proxy counsel appearing for the counsel for the appellant seeks an adjournment on the ground that the arguing counsel is in personal difficulty.

    2. A perusal of the order sheets reveals that the matter has remained at the stage of admission since August, 2016. Counsel for the appellant has been accommodated for adjournment on three occasions. This is the fourth time that a request for adjournment is being made and that too, at the stage of admission.

    3. While accommodation the counsel for the appellant for the last time, list on 21.04.2017 for admission.

    4. It is made clear that if the counsel fo

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