Back
DWARKA DHISH BANSAL
Rambati Bai – Appellant
Versus
Govind Narayan Sharma – Respondent
ORDER
1. This civil revision has been preferred by the applicants/plaintiffs challenging order dtd.21.4.2011 passed by 3rd Additional District Judge (Fast Track) Begamganj, District Raisen to the Court of 3rd Additional District Judge, Raisen in Misc. Appeal No.25/2006 affirming the order dtd. 7.8.2006 passed by Civil Judge Class-II, Begamganj, District Raisen in MJC No.2/2006 whereby applicants/plaintiffs' application under Order 9 Rule 9 CPC was dismissed as barred by limitation, which has been affirmed by appellate Court, even after condoning the delay in filing of application under Order 9 rule 9 CPC.
2. Facts in short are that, a civil suit for eviction on the grounds available under section 12(1) of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act') was filed by the original plaintiff-Bhagwan Das, (now dead, through LRs-the applicants) against the respondent in which the applicants/plaintiffs' evidence was over and two witnesses of defendant were also examined, and lastly on 23.3.2005 case was fixed for examination of defendant's witness-Mamta Sharma but at this stage the plaintiffs or their counsel did not appear, resultantly trial Court dismissed the suit for want
Ex parte decree – A party cannot be allowed to take advantage of his own fault at cost of prejudice to adversary - Courts have committed no error in holding that petition under Order IX Rule 13 C.P.C....
(1) Res Judicata – Whether suit is barred by any law must be determined from statements in plaint and it is not open to decide issue on the basis of any other material including written statement in ....
Point of law: Once court accepts explanation as sufficient it is the result of positive exercise of discretion and normally the superior court should not disturb such finding, much less in revisiiona....
The court established that 'sufficient cause' for non-appearance must be interpreted liberally, allowing for restoration of applications even after previous dismissals.
The court established that sufficient cause for non-appearance should be interpreted liberally to ensure justice and the right to a fair hearing.
Power conferred on Courts under Rule 3 of Order 17 of CPC to decide suit on merits for default of a party is a drastic power which seriously restricts remedy of unsuccessful party for redress.
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
