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

1971 Supreme(All) 258

S.N.KATJU
Nanak Chand – Appellant
Versus
Goswami Preetam Lal – Respondent


Advocates:
N.A. Kazmi, for Applicant; A.D. Prabhakar, for Opposite Party.

ORDER :- I have heard learned counsel for the parties. There is no force in this application. The suit for ejectment and arrears of rent was decreed ex parte against the defendant-applicant on 11-11-1968. On 25-2-1969, an application under Order 9, Rule 13 Civil Procedure Code was filed by the applicant for setting aside the ex parte decree. The trial court passed an order, the operative portion of which is as follows:-

"Allowed on payment of Rs.10/- as costs subject to the condition that the applicant should deposit Rs.394.15 as rent of the period from 18-8-1965 to 12-8-1968 and alleged monthly damages of Rs.11/- commencing from 17-08-1968 upto date by 30-5-1969 failing which the application shall stand automatically rejected."

The applicant did not make the necessary payment of the amount but moved an application on 29-5-1969 praying that the time for payment should be extended by 31-5-1969. The applicant made another application in which he stated that he was depositing Rs.394.15 and prayed for two months' time for depositing the balance of Rs.104.50 p. Both the aforesaid applications were dismissed by the trial court on 13-9-1969. The trial court said that it had no jurisdiction







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