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

1986 Supreme(MP) 39

T.N.SINGH
KUNJA – Appellant
Versus
LALARAM – Respondent


T. N. SINGH, J.

( 1 ) INJUSTICE is not law. Justice is law. Shri K. N. Gupta, submits that the Court will not go door to door to deliver justice. But I told him, litigants coming to Court must not see the doors of the Court shut and no Court shall shut its door to the litigants.

( 2 ) IT is another unfortunate case whose number is running into legion. After 12 years this matter has seen the light of the day though it had to be disposed of only by a very short order as a single and simple point of law merely is involved in the case. This appeal is against an order passed by the lower Appellate Court refusing to restore the appeal for rehearing after setting aside ex parte decree passed against the respondents.

( 3 ) SHRI Dubey has made a very short submission founded on violation of Rule 19 of Order 5, C. P. C. and I have no doubt that the contention of learned counsel for the appellant must prevail despite the forceful arguments of Shri Gupta, who appears for the respondents in this case. Shri Dubey has drawn my attention to the lower appellate Court's order dated 19-11-1971 to submit that the appeal could not have heard ex parte without compliance of the provisions of Rule 19, Orde







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