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

2007 Supreme(P&H) 1799

PERMOD KOHLI
Roshan Lal – Appellant
Versus
Kewal Singh – Respondent


Advocates:
For the Appellants:Mr.Rameshwar Malik, Advocate
For the Respondents:Mr.Arun Jain, Advocate.

JUDGMENT

Permod Kohli, J:- Delay of 635 days in filing this Regular Second Appeal, is sought to be condoned through medium of this application filed on behalf of the defendants/applicants. The admitted factual position relevant for purposes of the present application is noticed below:-

2. Respondent No.1. herein filed a Civil Suit No. 85 of 2002, against the applicants and respondent Nos. 2 to 5 in the Court of Addl. Civil Judge (Senior Division), Gohana, claiming declaration with consequential relief of permanent injunction. The defendants were proceeded ex-parte in the trial Court and consequently, the suit came to be decided vide judgment and decree dated September 25,2004. The trial Court,however, dismissed the suit of the plaintiff. The circumstances where-under the applicants and respondent Nos.2 to 5 herein (defendants in the suit), were proceeded ex-parte are not evident from the judgment of the trial Court. The trial Court simply made following observations in para 3 thereof:-

“Defendants were proceeded ex-parte after they failed to put up appearance in the Court”.

3. The plaintiff/respondent No.1 herein, preferred an appeal being Civil appeal No. 138 of 2004, in the Court o






























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