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

1990 Supreme(MP) 162

P.C.PATHAK
Electric Construction and Equipment Co. Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
Permali Wallace Ltd. – Respondent


Advocates:
Y.S. Dharmadhikari with G.K. Tiwari for appellant; S.C. Chaturvedi for respondents.

ORDER

P.C. Pathak, J. -- 1. The defendant has filed this appeal under order 43, rule 1(d) of the Code of Civil Procedure against an order rejecting an application under order 9, rule 13, CPC to set aside ex-parte decree dated 20.4.1983.

2. On 1.10.1981, the respondent/plaintiff filed a suit for recovery of Rs.1,17,519.22 representing unpaid price of the goods together with interest @ 18% per annum, godown charges @ 2½% per annum. The plaintiff also claimed interest pendente lite and future both, godown charges at the aforesaid rate till realisation together with costs.

3. On 25.6.1982, the Court noted that the summons issued to the defendant were not received back. Therefore, the Court ordered issue of fresh summons in addition to by registered post. Order-sheet dated 5.8.1982, shows that the summons were not issued since the process fee and registration charges were not paid. On 20.9.1982, the Court noted that the summons sent through ordinary post was not back, and was therefore awaited, and the summons through registered post had not been issued. Therefore, the Court ordered issue of summons through registered post on the same day. The suit was posted for settlement of issues on






























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