Showing : 11-20 of 32 Results

ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Year of decision: 2012
Details
Civil Procedure Code, 1908, Order 9, Rule 13-- Ex parte decree - Setting aside - Law as to : (1) Ordinarily a litigant does not stand to benefit by lodging an appeal late; (2) Refusing to condone delay can result in a meritorious matter being thrown out at the very threshold and cause of justice being defeated. As against this when delay is..........
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Year of decision: 2011
Details
Civil Procedure Code, 1908, Section 4, 7, Order 9, Rule 3, 4- - Eviction application - Both parties absent - Dismissal of eviction application for default - Restoration of - Issuance of notice to defendant - Not necessary - Held, O.9.R.3 of CPC provides that where neither party appears, Court may dismiss suit - However in such situation it is not necessary to..........
MADRAS HIGH COURT
Year of decision: 2011
Details
Civil Procedure Code, 1908, Order 37, Rule 3(4), Civil Procedure Code, 1908, Order 9, Rule 13-- Summary suit - Ex parte decree - Setting aside of - Summons for judgment in Form 4A in Appendix B was not served on counsel for defendant as contemplated U.O.37.R.3(4) - Court below had posted the case only after 4 days after defendants entered appearance and passed an ex parte decree - Held,..........
CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Year of decision: 2011
Details
Civil Procedure Code, 1908, Order 9, Rule 13-- Ex parte decree - Setting aside of - Summons has been duly served upon defendant Nos.1 to 3 - They had knowledge of institution of suit - They did not take any steps in said suit and Defendant No.4 entered appearance but did not contest said suit - Suit was decreed ex parte - Cause shown by..........
PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
Year of decision: 2011
Details
Civil Procedure Code, 1908, Order 9, Rule 4, Civil Procedure Code, 1908, Order 17, Rule 1, 2-- Suit dismissed in default for want of prosecution - Dismissal in default amounts to dismissal U.O.9.R.3 and not U.O.17.R.2 CPC - Proper remedy for making an application is U.O.9.R.4 CPC...........
PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
Year of decision: 2009
Details
Civil Procedure Code, 1908, Order 9, Rule 7, Transfer of Property Act, 1882, Section 52-- Suit for specific performance - Defendants No.2 to 4 proceeded exparte - Subsequent vendees impleaded as a party to the suit - Subsequent vendees seeking setting aside exparte order against defendants No.2 to 4 and further sought permission to cross examine the witnesses of the plaintiff and..........
BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Year of decision: 2009
Details
Civil Procedure Code, 1908, Order 9, Rule 4-- Dismissal in default - Restoration - Order passed U.O.9.R.4 is not subject to any appeal...........
KERALA HIGH COURT
Year of decision: 2007
Details
Civil Procedure Code, 1908, Order 37, Rule 3, 4, Civil Procedure Code, 1908, Order 9, Rule 13-- Summary suit - Exparte decree after filing of written statement - Remedy is to apply to set aside exparte decree U.O.9.R.13 and not U.O.37.R.4 CPC...........
RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Year of decision: 2004
Details
Civil Procedure Code, 1908, Section 115, Order 37, Rule 4, 3(4), Civil Procedure Code, 1908, Order 9, Rule 13-- Exparte decree U.O. 37 - Setting aside - Merely a printed line in summons that affidavit as required to be filed U.O.37.R.3(4) stands filed is not sufficient whereas in fact no such affidavit is filed - Since there is no compliance with mandatory provision of Order 37.R.3(4) exparte decree set..........
KERALA HIGH COURT
Year of decision: 2003
Details
Civil Procedure Code, 1908, Order 9, Rule 4-- Court fee - Non payment - Plaint rejected U.O.7.R.11 - Application U.O.9.R.4 is not maintainable - Decree passed U.O.7.R.11(c) is a decree u/s 2(2) of the Code, hence appealable...........

Showing : 11-20 of 32 Results