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

2014 Supreme(Raj) 1689

R.S.CHAUHAN
Dhanni Devi – Appellant
Versus
Mandroop Singh – Respondent


Advocates:
For the Petitioners:J.R. Tantia, Advocate.

JUDGMENT

1. - The petitioners are aggrieved by two orders dated 6.4.2013 passed by the Additional District Judge, Khetri, District Jhunjhunu. By the first order, he has condoned the delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act in filing the application under Order 9, Rule 7 CPC; by the second order, he has allowed the application under Order 9, Rule 7 CPC and has set aside the ex-parte order dated 3.9.2011.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioners-plaintiffs filed a civil suit against the respondents-defendants No. 1 to 4, for cancellation of a sale-deed. On 30.7.2011, the suit was registered and summons were issued on 3.8.2011. On 3.8.2011, Smt. Munni wife of defendant No.3 appeared for all the defendants and undertook to file Vakalatnama on behalf of all the defendants. Therefore, the trial court granted time and adjourned the case to 3.9.2011. On 3.9.2011, the defendant Nos. 1, 2 and 4 remained absent. Hence, the learned trial court ordered to proceed ex-parte against them. On 19.5.2012, the defendant No.1 Mandroop Singh, moved an application under Order 9, Rule 7 CPC along with an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. The petitioners-plaintiffs filed t






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