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

HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
DR. PRADIP KUMAR GHOSH and ANOTHER – Appellant
Versus
BARUN KUMAR BANERJEE – Respondent


Advocates:
['SIDDHARTHA SAH', 'NARENDRA BALI', 'B M PINGAL', '', 'BARUN KUMAR BANERJEE IN PERSON']

IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL

A.O. No. 398 of 2008

Dr. Pradip Kumar Ghosh, Chairman, Board of Trustees,

Washington Kali Temple, 16126 Columbia- Pike,

Burtons Ville, Maryland- 20866 USA and another -Appellants.

Versus

Barun Kumar Banerjee S/o Sri Deb Kumar

Banerjee

- Respondent.

Mr. Siddharth Shah, Advocate for the appellants.

Mr. B.M. Pingal and Mr. Narendra Bali, Advocates for the respondents.

(Hon’ble B.S. Verma, J.)

This appeal has been preferred against the judgment and

order dated 22-8-2008, passed by Civil Judge (Senior Division),

Haridwar, in Misc. Case No. 67 of 2008, Dr. Pradeep Kumar Ghosh

and another Vs. Barun Kumar Banerjee, whereby the application of

the petitioner filed U/O 9 Rule 13 C.P.C. to set aside the expartee

decree, was rejected.

The learned counsel for the appellant has vehemently

urged that the delay in filing the application U/O 9 Rule 13 C.P.C.

was 19 days, and the learned trial court should have condoned the

delay.

Learned counsel for the appellant has also submitted that

the respondent can be compensated by award of cost while condoning

the delay in filing

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