Back
DELHI HIGH COURT
C.HARI SHANKAR
Jatinder Singh – Appellant
Versus
Mahant Ayudhya Dass – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. court addresses procedural history and application details. (Para 1) |
| 2. petitioner's counsel argues absence of attestation due to prior court strike. (Para 2) |
| 3. petitioner displays repeated non-compliance and dilatory tactics. (Para 3 , 4) |
| 4. court dismisses the petition, confirming previous order. (Para 5) |
C. Hari Shankar, J.
1. The impugned order, dated 1st June 2022, passed by the learned Additional District Judge ("the learned ADJ") in Suit 12803/2016 (Mahant Ayudhya Dass & Anr. v. Pritam Singh & Ors), rejects an application filed by the petitioner under Order IX Rule 7 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC), in the following terms:
"Suit No.12803/16
Mahant Ayudhya Dass & Anr. Vs. Pritam Singh & Ors.
01.06.2022
Present: Counsel Sh. Kuljeet Rawal for plaintiffs. Counsel Ms. Harithi for all the defendants.
An application u/o 9 Rule 7 CPC is filed on behalf of the defendants along-with copies of documents with list of documents. Copies supplied.
Written arguments have been filed on behalf of the plaintiffs.
Put up for orders on the application u/o 9 Rule 7 CPC at 4 pm.
Sd.
At 4 pm.
Present: None.
Arguments were already heard on the application
Compliance with court orders is critical; repeated failure to follow procedural directions justifies denial of applications seeking relief from prior court decisions.
The need for the Trial Court to decide the application of the Petitioner on its own merits and the imposition of legal costs as a condition for the liberty granted.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the necessity for parties to appear and adduce evidence in a suit, as emphasized by the provisions of Order XVII Rule 2 and Order XVII Rule 3 of th....
The right of the petitioner to contest the matter in execution proceedings and the imposition of appropriate cost to allow participation, as provided under Order 9 Rule 7 of CPC.
A defendant retains the right to participate in proceedings even after the rejection of an application under Order IX, Rule 7, provided they appear timely and engage with the trial process.
Ex parte decree – A party cannot be allowed to take advantage of his own fault at cost of prejudice to adversary - Courts have committed no error in holding that petition under Order IX Rule 13 C.P.C....
The right to lead evidence is pivotal to a fair trial and partakes of the character of natural justice and fair play. The recall of a witness under Order XVIII Rule 17 should be for clarifying any do....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that evidence produced by the parties cannot be considered in the absence of pleading, and parties should not be permitted to travel beyond their p....
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
