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

2017 Supreme(Ori) 367

A.K.RATH
Rohit Bahadur Singh – Appellant
Versus
Raghunath Mishra – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioners: Mr. A. Mohanty
For the Opp. Parties : Mr. S. Udgata

JUDGMENT :

A.K. RATH, J.

This petition challenges the order dated 20.10.2014 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Jr.Division), Rairakhol in C.S. No. 4/2004/33/2011, whereby and whereunder the learned trial court rejected the application of defendant no.2 under Order 9 Rule 7 C.P.C. to set aside the ex parte order dated 8.1.2007.

2. Opposite party no.1 as plaintiff instituted the suit for declaration of right, title, interest and permanent injunction impleading the petitioner and opposite party no.2 as defendants. The petitioner was defendant no.2 in the suit. He was set ex parte. When the suit was posted for judgment, at this juncture, he filed an application under Order 9 Rule 7 C.P.C. praying inter alia to set aside the ex parte order dated 8.1.2007. The plaintiff filed objection to the same. The learned trial court rejected the same on the ground that no good cause has been assigned by defendant no.2. Held so, the learned trial court dismissed the petition.

3. Heard Mr. A. Mohanty, learned Advocate for the petitioner and Mr. S. Udgata, learned Advocate for opposite party no.1.

4. The question does arise as to whether application under Order 9, Rule 7 C.P.C. is maintainable after closu







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