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

2022 Supreme(MP) 125

PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV
Nyaz Ahmad – Appellant
Versus
Sarfraj Ahmad – Respondent


Advocates:
Bhanu Pratap Yadav for petitioner.

ORDER

1. The petitioner-defendant is aggrieved by order dated 13.12.2017 (Annexure P/1) passed by the First Civil Judge, Class-I, Budhar, District Shahdol in C.S. No.12-B of 2017, whereby, the application under Order IX rule 7 of the Code of Civil Procedure for setting aside the ex-parte order dated 27.3.2017 has been rejected.

2. This Court while issuing notice to the respondent on 19.2.2018 directed that further proceedings pending before the trial Court shall remain stayed and the said stay is in operation till date. Despite service of notice, none appears for the respondent-plaintiff.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner-defendant submits that the respondent-plaintiff had filed a suit for compensation against the petitioner-defendant and the petitioner-defendant engaged a counsel, who was appearing before the trial Court. When the matter was listed on 27.3.2017 for filing of the written statement, neither the petitioner nor his counsel could appear and, therefore, the trial Court had proceeded ex-parte against the petitioner. The petitioner-defendant submitted an application under Order IX rule 7 of the Code of Civil Procedure along with the written statement for

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