Full Text
Translation output
..~.A
*
+
'\,' iN THE HiGH COURT OJF ][)EJLH][ AT NEW ][)EJLH][
C.R.P. 140/2010
MOHD SHAHID
Through:
ICICI BANK LTD
Through: ..... Petitione:r
Mr. S.Azad, Mr. Adnan Ahmad and
Ms. Aprajita, Advocates
*
+
'\,' iN THE HiGH COURT OJF ][)EJLH][ AT NEW ][)EJLH][
C.R.P. 140/2010
MOHD SHAHID
Through:
ICICI BANK LTD
Through: ..... Petitione:r
Mr. S.Azad, Mr. Adnan Ahmad and
Ms. Aprajita, Advocates
VERSUS
..... Respondent
None
C-; { CORAM:
HON'BlLE MR. JUSTICE P.K. BHASIN
OR][)ER
19.08.2011
I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the impugned order. Suit tmder order XXXVII CPC was decreed by the trial Court on
5th November, 2008 because of the petitioner-defendant's failure to enter appearance within the prescribed period. Then an application was filed by the petitioner for re-calling that order and vide impugned order that applicationhas been rejected on the ground that the petitioner and his counsel were both aware of the ongoing proceedings and so it could not be accepted that the petitioner was not served .with the summons. This is what trial Court has observed in the
~. ' impugned order:-
- ....~~
- ' - ---~-.,<-
C.R.P. 140/2010
"It has been alleged in the application filed by the
None
C-; { CORAM:
HON'BlLE MR. JUSTICE P.K. BHASIN
OR][)ER
19.08.2011
I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the impugned order. Suit tmder order XXXVII CPC was decreed by the trial Court on
5th November, 2008 because of the petitioner-defendant's failure to enter appearance within the prescribed period. Then an application was filed by the petitioner for re-calling that order and vide impugned order that applicationhas been rejected on the ground that the petitioner and his counsel were both aware of the ongoing proceedings and so it could not be accepted that the petitioner was not served .with the summons. This is what trial Court has observed in the
~. ' impugned order:-
- ....~~
- ' - ---~-.,<-
C.R.P. 140/2010
"It has been alleged in the application filed by the
JUDGMENT
debtor that his counsel appeared on 05.11.2008 and on_ i·nquiry the counsel was told that the next date of hearing for the case has been fixed to 06.01.2009. He further states that the bank officials of the decree holder on
14.11.2008 visited his house asking for the vehicle
INDICA/DLS no. .DL8CM 4458 and upon his inquiry he found that a decree had been passed against him by this
Court on 05.11.2008. He further claims that summons were received by one Imran Khan who is not known to him and not a member of his family, Page I of2
·~ .'
2011:DHC:9986
It is matter of record that on 04.1 0.08, the matter was taken up by this Court and the counsels for both the plaintiff and the defendant were present. Summons for judgnl.ent were required to be served to the defendant on filing of PF & RC and it is also clear from records that the defendant was served by the process served on 21.10.08 by lmran Khan who claimed to be the brother of the judgment debtor.
In view of the above stated facts, it is clear that the judgment debtor and his counsel were aware about the date of hearings in the present case. also, the records clearly show that the summons for judgment were duly served on the judgment debtor for 05.11.2008 and on that date neither the judgment debtor nor his counsel were present in the
Court."
Thus, I do not find any material irregularity committed by the learned
Additional District Judge or any perversity in the impugned order justifying any interference by this Comi in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction. This revision petition is dismissed.
AUGUST 19, 2011
C.R.P. 140/2010 Page 2 of2
2011:DHC:9986
14.11.2008 visited his house asking for the vehicle
INDICA/DLS no. .DL8CM 4458 and upon his inquiry he found that a decree had been passed against him by this
Court on 05.11.2008. He further claims that summons were received by one Imran Khan who is not known to him and not a member of his family, Page I of2
·~ .'
2011:DHC:9986
It is matter of record that on 04.1 0.08, the matter was taken up by this Court and the counsels for both the plaintiff and the defendant were present. Summons for judgnl.ent were required to be served to the defendant on filing of PF & RC and it is also clear from records that the defendant was served by the process served on 21.10.08 by lmran Khan who claimed to be the brother of the judgment debtor.
In view of the above stated facts, it is clear that the judgment debtor and his counsel were aware about the date of hearings in the present case. also, the records clearly show that the summons for judgment were duly served on the judgment debtor for 05.11.2008 and on that date neither the judgment debtor nor his counsel were present in the
Court."
Thus, I do not find any material irregularity committed by the learned
Additional District Judge or any perversity in the impugned order justifying any interference by this Comi in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction. This revision petition is dismissed.
AUGUST 19, 2011
C.R.P. 140/2010 Page 2 of2
2011:DHC:9986