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

1977 Supreme(Ori) 22

S.K.RAY
KAMAL RAY – Appellant
Versus
BHAGABAT SINGH – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
B.L.N.SWAMY, N.C.PANIGRAHI

S. K. RAY, J.

( 1 ) THIS is a plaintiff's revision petition directed against order D/- 22-4-76 of the munsif, Bhubaneswar setting aside the ex parte decree passed against the opposite party under Order 9, Rule 13, C. P. C.

( 2 ) THE petitioner filed O. S. No. 46 of 1971-I for declaration of his title to the suit property, for recovery of possession thereof after evicting the defendant therefrom and for cost and other ancillary reliefs. The suit was decreed ex parte on 25-1-74, A petition under Order 9, Rule 13 was filed for setting aside the ex parte decree. The plea of the opposite party was that the plaintiff obtained the ex parte decree against him by fraudulently suppressing summons, and that he became aware of the decree passed against him ex parte on 29-1-75 and filed his application under Order 9, Rule 13 on 12-2-75 within 30 days thereof.

( 3 ) MR. Swamy's contention is that the application under Order 9, R, 13 was hopelessly barred by limitation not having been filed within the time prescribed therefor under Article 123 of Limitation Act. Article 123 of the Limitation Act provides a period of limitation of 30 days from the date of decree or where the summons or notice w


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