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

SATHEY
Hashmat Rai – Appellant
Versus
Lalchand – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
For the Applicant : Nihalani.
For the Respondent: Chugani.

ORDER :

1. This is a revision petition by defendant 1 against the order dated 23-6-51 of the Subordinate Judge, Bhopal, restoring the non-applicant no. 1 plaintiff's suit dismissed under O. 17, R. 3, Civil P. C, on 7-5-51 to file.

2. The suit was fixed for plaintiff's evidence on 21-4-51, but was adjourned, subject to payment of Rs. 25 as cost, to 7-5-51, as his witnesses were not summoned. On 7-5-51 the plaintiff was absent and his counsel stated that he had no instructions; the cost of Rs. 25 was also not paid and the Court therefore dismissed the suit under O. 17, R. 3, Civil P. C.

3. On 29-5-51 the plaintiff filed an application for restoration of the suit to file on the ground that he was taken ill and had gone to Bombay before 21-4-51 asking his counsel to seek an adjournment, that he was not informed of the order for cost or the date of the next hearing and hence could not give any instructions nor could he pay the cost; that the mention of O. 17, R. 3 in the order dated 7-5-51, was an accidental error for order O. 17, R. 2 and the application was thus tenable. Defendant 1 denied the allegations and contended that the application was not tenable and stated that the question be

























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