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

2023 Supreme(P&H) 3478

MEENAKSHI I. MEHTA
Rahul Sachdeva – Appellant
Versus
Tarvinder Pal Singh – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
Mr. Sanjeev Soni, Advocate, for the revisionist-petitioner.

Table of Content
1. background of ex-parte judgment and decree (Para 1 , 2)
2. court's reasoning on merits and timeliness (Para 3)
3. claim of inadequate notice and delay explanation (Para 4)
4. rejection of applicant's legal arguments (Para 5 , 6)
5. dismissal of revision petition due to lack of merit (Para 7)

JUDGMENT

Meenakshi I. Mehta, J.

By way of the instant revision petition, the petitioner-defendant No.4-applicant (here-in-after to be referred as 'the applicant') has assailed the order dated 12.12.2016 (Annexure P-2) passed by learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Amritsar (for short 'the trial Court'), whereby the application moved by him and his co-applicant-defendant No.3 under Order 9, Rule 13 read with section 151 CPC with a prayer to set aside the ex-parte judgment and decree dated 31.01.2011, has been dismissed and he (applicant) has also laid challenge to the judgment dated 14.09.2022 (Annexure P-4), handed down by learned Additional District Judge, Amritsar, (for short 'the Appellate Court'), dismissing the appeal preferred by him against order Annexure P-2.

2. Shorn and short of unnecessary details, the facts, culminating in the filing of the present revision petition, a

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