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

1965 Supreme(Ori) 56

K.AHMAD
K. SEETHAMMA – Appellant
Versus
K. KAMESWAR RAO – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
A.K.Padhi, N.V.RAMDAS, Y.S.N.MURTY

K. AHMAD, C. J.

( 1 ) THIS is an application in revision filed by the plaintiff against the order D/- 1812-1963 passed on appeal confirming the order D/ 30-4-1962 passed bv the Trial court whereby it dismissed the suit under Order 17, Rule 2 of the Code of Civil procedue. It appears that the suit was pending for some time and finally on 8-81961 it was posted for hearing to 31-8-1961. On that date the plaintiff originally did not turn up nor there was any petition filed on her behalf for adjournment. In fact not even hazira was filed by the learned lawyer appearing for her. On the contrary, the learned lawyer informed the Court that be had no instruction. Subsequently the plaintiff after some time came to Court. But though she was present she did not even then take any step when the case was taken up for hearing with the result that it was ultimately dismissed for default. Thereafter on 30-9-1961 there was an application filed under Order 9, Rule 9 of the Code of Civil procedure for restoration of the suit. This was disposed of by the Trial Court by the order dated 30-4-1962 whereby it held that "there was no sufficient ground for setting aside the dismissal order". Accordingly it






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