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

2002 Supreme(Raj) 697

H.R.PANWAR
KAMI DAN SINGH – Appellant
Versus
RAM CHANDRA – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
DINESH MAHESHVARI, J.L.PUROHIT

Judgment


H. R. PANWAR, J.

( 1 ) THIS appeal under Order 43 Rule 1 (d) read with Order 9, Rule 9, CPC is directed against the order dated 19-12-97 passed by Additional District Judge No. 1, Bikaner (hereinafter referred to as the trial Court) whereby the application filed by the plaintiff-appellant for restoration of the suit was dismissed for want of payment of process fee and filing of notices for service on defendant-respondents. Aggrieved by the order impugned of the trial Court, the plaintiff-appellant has preferred the present appeal.

( 2 ) BRIEFLY stated facts to the extent they are relevant and necessary for disposal of this appeal are that on 10-2-1981 the plaintiff-appellant originally filed a suit for declaration and possession with other consequential reliefs in respect of the property in dispute. The original suit was posted for the plaintiffs evidence on 2-3-94. On this date neither the plaintiff nor his counsel appeared and the trial Court dismissed the suit for default. Against the order dated 2-3-94, the plaintiff-appellant filed an application on 31-3-94 seeking restoration of the original suit which was dismissed on account of nonappearance of plaintiff-appellant













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