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

1953 Supreme(All) 264

MOOTHAM, GURTU
Faiyaz Khan – Appellant
Versus
Mithan – Respondent


Advocates:
J. Swarup and Hari Swarup, for Appellant; B.L. Chaturvedi, for Respondent.

Judgement

MOOTHAM, J. :- This is a defendants appeal from an order of the Civil Judge, Agra.

2. The 29th February 1952, was fixed by the Civil Judge for the hearing of a suit in which the present respondent was the plaintiff and the present appellant the defendant. On that date counsel for the defendant applied for an adjournment as the defendant was not present and the hearing was adjourned to the 14th March. On the adjourned date the defendant was absent and his counsel stated that he bad no instructions, whereupon counsel for the plaintiff asked the court to proceed to decide the, suit under O. 17 Rule 3. The court purported to do so; it recorded the evidence of the plaintiff and two witnesses, delivered judgment in favour of the plaintiff and a decree was subsequently drawn up in accordance with the terms of the judgment.

3. One month later, on the 14 April, the defendant applied to the court for the decree to be set aside under O. 9 R 13. This application was dismissed by the learned Civil Judge in a brief order in which he said -

"The application does not lie as the decision was on merits under O. 17 R. 3 Civil P.C. Order. Rejected.

It is from this order that the present appeal h











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