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

1996 Supreme(Ori) 317

DIPAK MISRA
NAKULA SWAIN – Appellant
Versus
JOGENDRA DAS – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
B.P. Ray, P.C. Rout and P.K. Pattanaik, for the Appellant; None, for the Respondent

JUDGMENT :

Dipak Misra, J. - The defendants-petitioners have preferred this Civil Revision challenging the order in Misc. Appeal No. 40/92 passed by the learned Addl. District Judge, Bhubaneswar confirming the order passed by the learned Munsif, Bhubaneswar in Misc. Case No. 71/92 refusing to entertain an application filed under Order 9, Rule 13 of the CPC (in short, 'the Code') to set aside the ex parte decree.

2. The factual scenario as emerges is as follows :

The opp. party as plaintiff instituted Title- Suit No. 209/90 in the Court of Munsif, Bhubaneswar for correction of Record-of-rights. The present revisionists who were the defendants in the Court below entered appearance in the aforesaid suit and sought adjournments on many an occasion for the purpose of filing of written statement. On 19-8-1991 the petition for time was rejected and the suit was fixed for ex parte hearing. The defendants did not take steps to recall the order setting them ex parte and allowed the suit to proceed ex parte. Two witnesses were examined, one on 3-9-1991 and another on 4-9-1991 and the suit was posted to 13-9-1991 for delivery of judgment, and ultimately judgment was pronounced on 21-9-1991 and ev









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