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

HARSH KUMAR
Girish Chand Verma – Appellant
Versus
Arvind Kumar – Respondent


Advocates:
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Appellants Pankaj Agrawal, Advocate
For the Respondents Anil Kumar Yadav, Advocate

JUDGMENT

Harsh Kumar, J.—Present F.A.F.O. has been filed against order dated 6.4.2012 passed by Additional District Judge, Court No.17, Agra in Misc. Case No.70/10 rejecting application of appellants under Section 5 of Indian Limitation Act for condonation of delay and consequently rejecting application under Order IX Rule 13 of Code of Civil Procedure, hereinafter referred to as “C.P.C.” for setting aside exparte judgment and decree dated 5.1.2004 in Original Suit No.287/2003 passed by Additional District Judge, Court No.17, Agra.

2. Brief facts relating to the case are that respondent No.1, Arvind Kumar filed Civil Suit No.287 of 2003 for permanent injunction against appellants, which was decreed exparte on 5.1.2004. The appellants (who were defendants of suit) moved an application under Order IX Rule 13, C.P.C. for setting aside exparte decree dated 5.1.2004 passed in civil suit No.287/2003, Arvind Kumar Vs. Girish Chand Verma and others along with an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay, which have been rejcted vide impugned order dated 6.4.2012. Feeling aggrieved defendants have preferred this First Appeal From Order.

3. Heard Shri Pankaj A

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