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

2006 Supreme(All) 44

VINEET SARAN
SUDESH – Appellant
Versus
ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE – Respondent


Advocates:
Counsel :
Chandra Kumar Rai for the Petitioners; M.A. Siddiqui for the Respondents.

JUDGMENT

Hon’ble Vineet Saran, J.—Original suit No. 729 of 1995 was filed on 12.10.1995 by Respondent No. 3 Jamin Raja Khan against the petitioners for a decree of permanent injunction and cancellation of sale deed dated 29.12.1994 passed in favour of the petitioners. An ex parte decree dated 1.5.1997 was passed by the trial court decreeing the suit of the plaintiff. Then on 24.1.1998, the petitioners (defendants) filed an application under Order 9 Rule 13, C.P.C. for setting aside the ex parte decree alongwith application under Section 5 of the Indian Limitation Act. The application for condonation of delay, as well as the application for setting aside the ex parte decree, were both rejected by the Civil Judge vide his order dated 8.3.2001. Misc. Appeal No. 25 of 2001 filed by the petitioners against the said order has also been dismissed by the Additional District Judge vide his order dated 16.5.2002. Aggrieved by the aforesaid orders, this writ petition has thus been filed with the prayer for quashing the orders dated 16.5.2002 and 8.3.2001 passed by Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 respectively, as well as the ex parte Judgment and Decree dated 1.5.1997 passed by the Respondent No. 2.

2.








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