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

1964 Supreme(Ori) 27

G.K.MISRA
Mulia Maharana – Appellant
Versus
Narayan Patra – Respondent


Advocates:
N.V. Ramdas, for Appellant.

ORDER :- Plaintiff is the petitioner. On 9-3-1962 issues were settled and the suit was adjourned for trial to 23-4-1962. On that day the plaintiff and defendant 1 filed haziras; as the Court was engaged in another part-heard suit, this suit was adjourned to 9-7-1962 for trial. On that day defendant I was ready and filed hazira; out the plaintiff applied for time. The prayer for adjournment was rejected and the parties were directed to get ready at once. Later, on the same day, the following order was passed :

"The plaintiff neither responds to calls nor takes any steps. The defendant 1 is ready. Hence the suit is dismissed for plaintiffs default in presence of defendant 1."

On 11-7-1962 the plaintiff filed an application under Order 9, Rule 9, C.P.C. for setting aside the order dated 3-7-1962. He alleged therein that one of his material witnesses was suffering from fever and the other missed the bus, and so he could not get ready on 9-7-1962. The learned Munsif disbelieved the story and held that there was no sufficient cause for non-appearance. The learned Subordinate Judge came to a different conclusion that the plaintiff had sufficient cause for his non-appearance. Both the Courts





























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