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

1966 Supreme(Ori) 6

G.K.MISRA
PRAHLAD PURSTY – Appellant
Versus
SHEOKH ABDUL RAHMAN – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
N.MUKHERJEE, U.N.SAHU

G. K. MISRA, J.

( 1 ) AFTER a chequered career the suit had been fixed to 26-3-1965 for hearing. Order passed on that date was to the effect: plaintiff files a petition for time to adjourn the suit on the ground pf illness. Defendant also files a petition to adjourn the suit. The time petitions are rejected as the grounds are baseless. Parties to come ready at once. Later both parties absent on call. Hence the suit is dismissed for default without costs. Plaintiff filed an application under Order 9, Rule 4, C. P. C. It was registered as Misc. Case No. 102 of 1965. On 27-4-1965 the petitioner (plaintiff) filed haziras and the opposite party (defendant) filed an objection. Petitioner and the advocate were present. The opposite party wanted to take part in the proceeding. On the objection of the plaintiff, defendant was not allowed to take part. The Misc. case was allowed and the suit was restored to file. Against this order, the Civil Revision has been filed.

( 2 ) ORDER 9, Rule 3, C. P. C. lays down that where neither party appears when the suit is called on for hearing, the Court may make an order that the suit be dismissed. Order 9, Rule 4 enacts that where a suit is dismissed u







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