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

1980 Supreme(Ori) 31

R.N.MISRA, K.B.PANDA, P.K.MOHANTY
E. I. D. PARRY LIMITED – Appellant
Versus
AGRO SALES AND SERVICE AND ORS – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
B.H.MOHANTY, C.A.RAO, C.V.MURTHY, G.P.RAO, P.K.SAHU, S.K.MOHANTY

R. N. MISRA, J.

( 1 ) THESE appeals under the Orissa High Court Order are directed against the judgment of a learned single Judge in two miscellaneous appeals under Order 43, Rule 1 (d) of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereafter called the Code) arising out of proceedings under Order 9, Rule 13 of the Code. When the appeals were placed before a Division Bench, it directed that both the matters be placed before a larger Bench.

( 2 ) MONEY Suit No. 339 of 1970 was filed by the appellant in the Court of the learned Subordinate Judge at Cuttack for recovery of Rs. 4,97,417. 08 paise on the plea that appellant as principal had supplied goods to the defendants, a partnership firm and two of its partners, on credit and they had failed to pay the price of the goods. Defendants entered contest but ultimately suffered an ex parte decree. Two separate applications--one by defendants 1 and 3 and the other by the second defendant of the suit -- were filed under Order 9, Rule 13 of the Code read with Section 151 thereof for setting aside the ex parte decree. These applications were registered as Miscellaneous Cases Nos. 19 and 20 of 1975. On 25-11-1975, the learned trial Judge rejected both the






















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