Back
MITALI THAKURIA
Sunny Shimrah – Appellant
Versus
Wungmayo Muinao S/o Lt. M. Mingshivam – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Heard Mr. T. B. Jamir, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. N. Longkumer, learned counsel for the respondent.
2. This application filed under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 read with Article 227 of the Constitution of Indian challenging the impugned order dated 21.07.2022 passed by the Court of learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Dimapur, Nagaland in I.A. (Civil) No.112/2022 arising out of Civil Suit No.14/2012.
3. The case, in a nutshell, is that the respondent, as plaintiff, filed Civil Suit No. 14/2012 against the petitioner/defendant. The respondent stated that he and his associates organized a concert on 06.05.2012 in Imphal, Manipur. The petitioner was provided tickets for this concert, but, neither, he made payment nor returned the unsold tickets. Furthermore, the petitioner shifted his residence from Imphal. Through this suit, the respondent/plaintiff prayed for the recovery of Rs. 40,05,000/- (Rupees forty lakhs five thousand) only, including an outstanding balance of Rs. 20,00,000/- (Rupees twenty lakhs) only. This sum represents damages for assault and harassment caused to the plaintiff, along with interest at 18% per annum from
The limitation period for challenging an ex-parte order starts from the date of knowledge of the order, not the date it was issued.
A party's knowledge of a lawsuit does not negate the right to challenge an ex-parte decree if sufficient cause for delay in filing is shown, and interlocutory evidence does not require strict proof.
Actual service of summons by registered post acknowledgment due is valid, even if defendants reside outside jurisdiction, and non-compliance with procedural rules does not equate to no service.
Point of Law : sufficient reason' for extending the delay in filing the petition should be construed liberally on the non-action on the part of the advocate. Besides, there is no general proposition ....
The court affirmed that proper procedures for ex-parte proceedings were followed, and the petitioner had knowledge of the case, validating the ex-parte order.
The Chief Ministerial Officer lacks authority to issue judicial notices; valid service requires proper documentation to invoke presumptions under the General Clauses Act.
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
