Back
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
RAVINDRA MAITHANI
Savitri Rahi – Appellant
Versus
Chajju Singh Tomar alias Chandra Singh Tomar – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. procedural history of ex parte suit and appeal. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. disputed claims on address, service, and knowledge. (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 10 , 11) |
| 3. no personal service; missed rebuttal opportunities noted. (Para 8 , 9 , 12) |
| 4. sufficient cause for non-appearance under o.41 r.21 cpc. (Para 13) |
| 5. appeal allowed; remand for fresh hearing expeditiously. (Para 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18) |
JUDGMENT :
Ravindra Maithani, J.
Instant appeal is preferred against the order dated 29.08.2019 passed in Misc. Case No. 482 of 2017, Smt. Savitri Rahi v. Chajju Singh Tomar alias Chandra Singh Tomar, by the court of Vth Additional District Judge, Dehradun (“the Misc. Case”), whereby the application filed by the appellant under Order 41 Rule 21 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (“CPC”) seeking recall of the ex parte order dated 29.11.2016 has been rejected.
2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
3. The respondent filed the Original Suit No. 122 of 2013, Sri Chajju Singh Tomar alias Smt. Savitri Rahi, in the court of Civil Judge (Senior Division), Dehradun for cancellation of sale deed dated 06.01.2002 (“the suit”). The suit proceeded ex parte, but dismissed on 0
Sufficient cause for non-appearance established where no personal service, publication notice after process server confirmed non-residence, no sufficiency finding recorded, and no intimation in paral....
The Trial Court lacked jurisdiction to proceed ex parte when the matter was fixed for interlocutory proceedings, leading to the ex parte decree being set aside.
The court emphasized that the discretion to condone delay must be exercised judiciously, and the law of limitation must be applied rigorously.
Improper service claims cannot void an ex parte judgment if the defendant had prior knowledge of the proceedings, as judicial efficiency must be upheld.
Timely filing and valid explanations for delays are crucial in applications to set aside ex parte judgments under Order 9 Rule 13 of the CPC.
Compliance with mandatory deposit requirements under Section 17 of the Provincial Small Causes Courts Act is essential for challenging an ex parte judgment, and procedural missteps do not invalidate ....
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
