Back
PREM NARAYAN SINGH
Deepak Singh – Appellant
Versus
Gopal Krishna – Respondent
ORDER
1. Both the applications have been filed arising out the same judgment, therefore, the same are being heard and decided with this common order.
2. The applicants have filed these MCC under Order 41 rule 21 of CPC for setting aside the Ex-parte judgment dated 9.8.2024 passed in SA No.79/2011.
3. Learned Senior counsel for the applicants submits that the final judgment has passed by co-ordinate Bench of this Court on 9.8.2024 without giving opportunity of hearing to the applicant. It is submitted that in the Second Appeal No.79/2011, the sole respondent was expired on 18.12.2020 and the death was declared by the respondent on 2.4.2024. Thereafter, applications under Order 22 rule 4 and under Order 22 rule 9 of CPC were filed by the respondent for for setting the abatement and bringing the LRs of sole respondent were filed and vide order dated 19.4.2024, notices were issued to the LRs and on the next date of hearing, both the applications were allowed on 16.7.2024. It is also submitted that on 16.7.2024, the notices of the applications were served upon two of the LRs, of sole respondents, but another two daughters have not been arrayed as LRs of respondent, however, they could not
The different scopes of proceedings under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC and Section 96(2) of CPC, and the principle of estoppel in challenging the withdrawal of an application.
The court ruled that failure to serve summons for judgment invalidates an ex parte judgment, emphasizing the mandatory nature of procedural requirements under Order 37 of the CPC.
Setting aside of ex parte judgment and decree – Defendant is obliged to apply for leave to defend only after he has been served with summons for judgment.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the provisions of Order 22 of CPC are procedural and should not curtail the substantial rights of the parties. The Court emphasized the applic....
Counsel must notify the court of a party's death and provide legal heirs' details; failure leads to abatement under Order 22 Rule 10A of CPC.
The main legal point established is that the timely filing of applications under Order XXII Rule 4 and Rule 9 of the CPC is crucial, and delay cannot be condoned without sufficient cause. Negligence ....
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
