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

1987 Supreme(Ori) 80

S.C.MOHAPATRA
BINOD KUMAR – Appellant
Versus
SATYABHAMA DEBI – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
P.K.ROUTRAY, R.N.SINHA, S.N.SINHA

S. C. MOHAPATRA, J.


( 1 ) DEFENDANTS are the petitioners in this civil revision against an order restoring the suit which was dismissed for default without notice to the petitioners. In spite of valid service of notice, plaintiff-opposite party has not entered appearance in this civil revision.

( 2 ) THE suit was for title and possession which was being contested by the defendants who filed a written statement denying the plaintiff's assertion. It was posted for hearing to 5-4-1983 on which date both the parties applied for adjournment. Both the applications were rejected and the plaintiff not being ready for hearing, the suit was dismissed for default. On 26-4-1983, the application for restoration of the suit was filed accompanied by a medical certificate. The matter was posted for hearing to 12-5-1983. That day an affidavit by the son of the plaintiff was filed in support of her absence indicating therein that the plaintiff was ill. Trial Court having restored the suit believing the ground of illness, this civil revision has been filed.

( 3 ) THERE is no dispute that the application for restoration was under O. 9, R. 4, C. P. C. Mr. K. N. Sinha, the learned counsel for the peti












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