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

1987 Supreme(Ker) 348

PADMANABHAN
HARIDAS – Appellant
Versus
MADHAVI AMMA – Respondent


Judgment :-

1. The short but interesting and informative question for consideration in this civil revision petition filed by the plaintiff is whether an appeal alone will lie or an application under 0.9 R.13 is also maintainable for getting a decree passed under 0.8 R.10, Code of Civil Procedure set aside and the suit restored to file.

2. The suit was filed by the revision petitioner for injunction against the respondents. There was an application for temporary injunction in which an order of interim injunction was issued and notice ordered. Defendants entered appearance and filed objection. They also filed an application for injunction against the plaintiff and produced several documents. Both the applications were disposed of on the merits after elaborate arguments by a detailed order on 7-6-1986. The agreements produced by the plaintiff were challenged as forged documents. Thereafter the case was adjourned for written statement to 30-10-1986. On that day written statement was not filed. Therefore the suit was decreed under 0.8 R.10, without declaring the defendants ex parte, on the sole ground that written statement was not filed. Plaintiff was not examined and no affidavit was a








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