Back
High Court Of Himachal Pradesh
R.S.PATHAK
NATIONAL RICE AND DAL MILLS, RAJPUR - Appellant
Versus
SURAJ SINGH - Respondent
Civil Revn. No. 50 of 1973
Decided On : 07/15/1974
Order 11, Rule 14 - Affidavit Requirement - The court rejected the defendant's revision petition against an order for not filing an affidavit in support of the application under Order 11, Rule 14 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The court emphasized the necessity of an affidavit as contemplated in the Code and upheld the rejection of the application due to the absence of an affidavit.
Fact of the Case:
The defendant filed a revision petition against the rejection of their application under Order 11, Rule 14 of the Code of Civil Procedure for not filing an affidavit in support of the application.
Finding of the Court:
The court upheld the rejection of the defendant's application, emphasizing the necessity of an affidavit as contemplated in the Code and stating that the trial court was entitled to reject the application due to the absence of an affidavit.
Issues: The issue revolved around the rejection of the defendant's application under Order 11, Rule 14 of the Code of Civil Procedure for not filing an affidavit in support of the application.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the necessity of an affidavit as contemplated in the Code and upheld the rejection of the application due to the absence of an affidavit.
Final Decision: The revision petition was dismissed with costs.
1. This is a defendants revision petition against an order dated September 12, 1973, passed by the learned Senior Subordinate Judge, Mandi rejecting his application under Order 11, R. 14 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
2. The learned Senior Subordinate Judge considered an affidavit necessary in support of the application under Order 11, Rule 14 of the Code of Civil Procedure, and as no such affidavit was filed he rejected the application. Now, there can be no dispute that it is for the Court to be satisfied that a case exists for granting the relief claimed in such application. If the court considers that an affidavit is necessary for this purpose it is entitled to require the party to file such affidavit. It is also evident from Form No. 6 in Appendix C to the Code that an affidavit is contemplated when an application is made under Order 11, Rule 14. In the present case, it does not appear that any attempt was made to file an affidavit. In the circumstances, the learned Senior Subordinate Judge was entitled to reject the application, and his order doing so does not call for interference. It is, however, open to the defendant to file a fresh application under Order 11, R. 14 supported by an affidavit. The trial Court will then consider the application.
3. The revision petition is dismissed with costs. Revision dismissed.
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
