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

1939 Supreme(All) 168

COLLISTER
Sheo Pujan Kalwar – Appellant
Versus
Bishnath Kalwar – Respondent


ORDER

Collister, J. - This is an application u/s 25, Section Order C. Act, against an order of the Court below restoring a suit. The date fixed for final decision was 12th May 1938. On that date the defendant appeared and. applied for an adjournment in order to file a written statement, and his application was allowed on condition that Rs. 2 were paid as compensation. The suit was adjourned to 12th July 1938, but on that date the defendant did not appear and the sum of Rs. 2 was not paid. The Court thereupon decreed the suit ex parte against the defendant. Thereafter the defendant applied for restoration, and ultimately on 27th August 1938 his application was allowed on payment of the original Rs. 2 as damages plus a further sum of Rs. 4. It is against that order that the present application has been referred. Two pleas are taken before me on behalf of the applicant. The first that the security which was furnished under Schedule 17(1), Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, was insufficient and therefore the Court was not competent to entertain the application for restoration. The suit was decreed for Rs. 251 and a bond was furnished for Rs. 250, that is to say one rupee less than the s

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