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

1955 Supreme(Mad) 89

P.V.RAJAMANNAR, SOMASUNDARAM
Shah Mohammad Khan – Appellant
Versus
H. N. Woodfall. – Respondent


Advocates:
Inamdar Abdus Salam for Petitioner.
T.R.Srinivasa Aiyar for Respondent.

Rajamannar, C.J. - These revision petitions were first heard by Somasundaram, J., who directed them to be posted before a Division Bench, because of the conflict of decisions on the only question which arises in these petitions, namely, whether an application for leave to defend in a suit under Order 37, of the Code of Civil Procedure can be entertained after a period of ten days, from the date of service of the summons.

The question appears to us to admit only of one answer. Before dealing with the decisions on the question, the material statutory provisions may be first noticed. Under Order 37, rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the Court shall, upon application by the defendant, give leave to appear and defend the suit, after the defendant satisfies the Court by facts disclosed in affidavits that there is prima facie defence. Order 37, rule 2 (2) of the Code, provides that in any case in which the defendant has not obtained such leave, the allegations in the plaint shall be deemed to be admitted and that the plaintiff shall be entitled to a decree. We are not now concerned with the provision in rule 4 of Order 37 which empowers the Court in special circumstances to set aside
















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