Full Text
Translation output
A-37 & 57
% 30.09.2011
Present: Mr. Sanjeev Agarwal, Mr. Aashish Gupta and Mr. Ekansh Agarwal, Advocates for the petitioner.
+CM No. 18362-63/2011 (exemption) in CM(M) NO. 1146/2011
CM No. 18424-25/2011 (exemption) in CM(M) No. 1156/2011
*
Exemption allowed subject to just exceptions.
CM(M) No. 1146/2011 and CM No. 18361/2011
CM(M) No. 1156/2011 and CM No. 18423/2011
The order impugned before this court is the order dated
04.08.2011 vide which the suit which had been dismissed in default for non-appearance of the plaintiff on 25.02.2008 had been restored vide the impugned order.
Present suit is a suit for possession. Issues have been framed but evidence is yet to be led. The suit had been dismissed in default on 25.02.2008; the case of the petitioner is that he learnt about this only on 26.02.2008; he had noted the wrong date which actually was 17.01.2008 but he had noted it as 18.01.2008; on
18.01.2008, he had come to know that the matter had been adjourned for 25.02.2008. The petitioner is a lawyer; he was contesting the case himself. The present application under Order 9
Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure has been filed on 24.03.2008 i.e. within less than a month of the date of the dismissal of the suit.
The impugned order had fairly and judiciously exercised its
2011:DHC:19464 discretion in favour of the plaintiff; it suffers from no infirmity.
Petition is dismissed.
INDERMEET KAUR, J.
SEPTEMBER 30, 2011 rb
2011:DHC:19464
% 30.09.2011
Present: Mr. Sanjeev Agarwal, Mr. Aashish Gupta and Mr. Ekansh Agarwal, Advocates for the petitioner.
+CM No. 18362-63/2011 (exemption) in CM(M) NO. 1146/2011
CM No. 18424-25/2011 (exemption) in CM(M) No. 1156/2011
*
Exemption allowed subject to just exceptions.
CM(M) No. 1146/2011 and CM No. 18361/2011
CM(M) No. 1156/2011 and CM No. 18423/2011
The order impugned before this court is the order dated
04.08.2011 vide which the suit which had been dismissed in default for non-appearance of the plaintiff on 25.02.2008 had been restored vide the impugned order.
Present suit is a suit for possession. Issues have been framed but evidence is yet to be led. The suit had been dismissed in default on 25.02.2008; the case of the petitioner is that he learnt about this only on 26.02.2008; he had noted the wrong date which actually was 17.01.2008 but he had noted it as 18.01.2008; on
18.01.2008, he had come to know that the matter had been adjourned for 25.02.2008. The petitioner is a lawyer; he was contesting the case himself. The present application under Order 9
Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure has been filed on 24.03.2008 i.e. within less than a month of the date of the dismissal of the suit.
The impugned order had fairly and judiciously exercised its
2011:DHC:19464 discretion in favour of the plaintiff; it suffers from no infirmity.
Petition is dismissed.
INDERMEET KAUR, J.
SEPTEMBER 30, 2011 rb
2011:DHC:19464
JUDGMENT