Full Text
Translation output
I t 11F $52 HIGH COURT OF DELHI
CM(M) 1129/2013 & CM No. 16621/2013
RAJARSHI BANERJEE Petitioner
Through ivlr.Anand Sharma, Adv.
CM(M) 1129/2013 & CM No. 16621/2013
RAJARSHI BANERJEE Petitioner
Through ivlr.Anand Sharma, Adv.
VERSUS
MIS KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK LIMITED Respondent
Through None.
Through None.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN SJNGH
24.10.2013 The petitioner has assailed the order dated 4th October, 2013 whereby the petitioner's application under Section 151 CPC seeking recalling of order dated 14' August, 2013 was dismissed. By order dated 14th August, 2013 the defence of the defendant was struck off due to non-payment of cost despite of various opportunities.
The cost in the above said matter was imposed on
7th January, 2013 1 for not filing the written statement in time. Various opportunities were granted by the learned trial court to deposit the cost. However, the petitioner failed to deposit the same. Admittedly, the final arguments of both the parties had already been advanced prior to the listing of the present petition and the matter was put up for
24.10.2013 The petitioner has assailed the order dated 4th October, 2013 whereby the petitioner's application under Section 151 CPC seeking recalling of order dated 14' August, 2013 was dismissed. By order dated 14th August, 2013 the defence of the defendant was struck off due to non-payment of cost despite of various opportunities.
The cost in the above said matter was imposed on
7th January, 2013 1 for not filing the written statement in time. Various opportunities were granted by the learned trial court to deposit the cost. However, the petitioner failed to deposit the same. Admittedly, the final arguments of both the parties had already been advanced prior to the listing of the present petition and the matter was put up for
ORDER
on
17th October, 2013. The petitioner has not informed the Court about the passing of order dated 17"'
October, 2013.
2013:DHC:8272 .1 so Under these circumstances, at this stage when the arguments on behalf of both the parties were addressed before the learned trial court and matter was kept for judgment on 17th October, 2013, the impugned order cannot be interfered with. The petition as well as the pending are dismissed.
( MANMOHAN SJNGH, J.
OCTOBER 24, 2013 2013:DHC:8272
17th October, 2013. The petitioner has not informed the Court about the passing of order dated 17"'
October, 2013.
2013:DHC:8272 .1 so Under these circumstances, at this stage when the arguments on behalf of both the parties were addressed before the learned trial court and matter was kept for judgment on 17th October, 2013, the impugned order cannot be interfered with. The petition as well as the pending are dismissed.
( MANMOHAN SJNGH, J.
OCTOBER 24, 2013 2013:DHC:8272