Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: answer interrogatories in Chandan Lal Joura vs Amin Chand Mohan Lal And Ors. on 18 April, 1960Matching Fragments
Any adjournment resulting thereby cannot be treated as "time granted to one party" within the meaning of O. 17, R. 3, Civil Procedure Code, vide Harjas Rai v. Narain Singh, 51 Pun Re 1915: (AIR 1915 Lah 439); and Karam Chand v. Jinda Ram, AIR 1924 Lah 404.
(30) The provisions of O. 17, R. 3, Civil Procedure Code, do not justify the striking out of the defence. In defendant is at fault then all that the Court can do is to decide the suit forthwith.
(31) There is no justification at all for striking out his defence even if he had failed in any duty. For striking out the defendants defence it ahs to be shown that the provisions of O. 11, R. 21, Civil Procedure Code, have been contravened. There are only three grounds upon which trail Court is justified in striking out the defence of the defendant namely, where there is refusal to answer interrogatories under S. 11, or there is refusal to make discovery of documents under S. 12, and lastly where there is refusal to allow inspection of documents under R. 18.