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

2006 Supreme(P&H) 3550

2006 (4) RCR CIVIL 757 (1)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
VINOD K. SHARMA, J.
Dr. Inderjit Siungh Bansal ....Petitioner.
Versus
Ajit Singh & Ors. ....Respondents.
C.R.No. 4873 of 2006
Decided On : 14.9.2006.

Advocates Appeared:
Mr. Malkeet Singh, Advocate for the petitioner.

The court's decision was influenced by the principle of granting opportunities in the interest of justice and ensuring compliance with court orders.

Headnote:

Restoration - Non-compliance of Court Orders - Opportunity granted for service of unserved respondents

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner filed a revision petition against the order dismissing the application for restoration of the suit due to non-compliance with court orders for furnishing registered cover.

Finding of the Court:

The court set aside the impugned order and granted the petitioner an opportunity to take steps for the service of unserved respondents.

Issues: Non-compliance with court orders, application for restoration, opportunity for service of unserved respondents

Ratio Decidendi: In the interest of justice, the court granted the petitioner an opportunity to comply with the court orders and serve the unserved respondents.

Final Decision: The impugned order was set aside, and the petitioner was granted an opportunity to take steps for the service of unserved respondents.

JUDGMENT

VINOD K. SHARMA,J.( ORAL ) - The present revision petition has been filed against the order dated 18.7.2006 passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge (Sr.Divn.), Nawanshahr dismissing the application filed by the petitioner for restoration of the suit for non-compliance of the orders passed by the Court for furnishing registered cover.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that earlier in the main suit also the defendants-respondents were not served and an application under Order 5 Rule 20 C.P.C. was moved for substituted service. However, the money could not be deposited as the suit was dismissed for non-prosecution and an application for restoration was made. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that it was for the reasons that the petitioner was trying to find out the addresses of the respondents that the registered cover was not furnished. Accordingly, learned counsel prays for one more opportunity to furnish the registered cover or in the alternative to move application for substituted service of unserved respondents.

In the interest of justice, the impugned order is set aside.

Opportunity is granted to the petitioner to take steps for service of unserved respondents.

Disposed of.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

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 Back to top