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

1995 Supreme(P&H) 1078

V.K.JHANJI
Amrik Singh – Appellant
Versus
Jasbir Singh – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioners:Mr. B.R. Mahajan, Advocate and Mr. S.K. Mahajan, Advocate.
For the Respondent:Mr. T.N. Gupta, Advocate.

ORDER

V.K. Jhanji, J. - This revision petition has been (sic) against the order whereby execution proceedings have not been stayed during the pendency of the application under order 9, rule 13, Code of Civil Procedure, for setting aside ex parte decree which has been passed against the petitioner.

2. It is the case of the petitioner in application under order 9 rule 13, Code of Civil Procedure, that he was not served in the petition. Till such time decision is given on the merits of the application for setting aside of the ex parte decree, I am of the view that it would be in the fitness of things if the dispossession of the petitioner is stayed. Accordingly, order under revision is set aside and it is directed that the petitioner shall not be dispossessed in execution of the ex parte decree till filed decision on application under order 9 rule 13, Code of Civil Procedure. Trial Court with whom application under order 9, rule 13, Code of Civil Procedure, is pending, is directed to dispose of the same within two months. It shall remain open to the petitioner to deposit the entire arrears of rent along with interest without prejudice to the rights of the parties.

Revision Petition sta


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