Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 14 (0.51 seconds)
Documents citing Universal Builders & Contractors vs Sheila Singh Uppal & Others on 17 October, 2008

Judgment vs . on 9 December, 2014

The another case Universal Builders & Contractors vs Sheila Singh Uppal cited by the counsel for the plaintiff is also distinguishable from the facts and circumstances of the present case because in that matter, the previous counsel of the respondent had expired after prolonged illness and the respondent was not aware about the death of her counsel. The High Court did not opt to set aside the order of the Trial court which has in its discretion restored the suit.
Delhi District Court Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Neetender Soni vs State Of West Bengal & Anr on 21 May, 2019

Honest effort was made by learned advocate for the petitioner to derive benefit favourable to the purpose of petitioner by making reference to a Delhi High Court judgement rendered in the case of Universal Builders and Constrictors vs. Sheila Singh Uppal & Ors. reported in 2009(3) CiVCC178:2009(2) PLR (Delhi) 47:2008(20)R.C.R.(Civil)485, the relevant text mentioned in para 12 of such decision may be mentioned as hereinunder:
Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side) Cites 8 - Cited by 1 - S Dasgupta - Full Document

Bisamber Dayal vs Muralidhar & Others on 10 July, 2012

On the other hand, counsel for respondent No.1 contended that averments made in the restoration application are also sufficient to condone the delay of 14 days in filing the restoration application and, therefore, the restoration application could not be dismissed merely because formal application for condonation of the said delay was not filed. Reliance in support CR No.2516 of 2011 -3- of this contention has been placed on various judgments namely Karam Pal versus Ramesh Jain, 2009(2) RCR (Civil) 613 of this Court; Canara Bank versus Prem Bhusan Dewan, 1992(2) RRR 444; Universal Builders and Contractors versus Sheila Singh Uppal & others, 2009 (3) CivCC 178 of Delhi High Court; Munishwari Devi versus Jitan Singh, 1993(2) LJR 674 of Allahabad High Court and The Bihar State Electricity Board, Patna versus Pawan Kumar Khetan and others, 1978 AIR (Patna) 253 of Patna High Court.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 0 - L N Mittal - Full Document

Sunder Singh vs Shri Darshan Lal on 25 January, 2010

5- A perusal of the application u/Order IX rule 13 CPC would show that the respondent has in detail mentioned the facts as to how he came to know of the passing of the ex parte decree and what were the causes for his absence and absence of his counsel. The averments made in the application u/o.IX rule 13 CPC has been made a part of the application u/section 5 of the Limitation Act, moved by the respondent. The respondent had also briefly stated the reasons as to how the respondent was ordered to be proceeded ex parte and ex parte decree was passed. It is very well settled law that it is not necessary to file a separate application for condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act (See Universal Builders and Contractors Vs. Sheila Singh Uppal and others, 154 (2008) DLT 69); M.Narsimha Reddy and others vs. Begari Samuel, ::4 : (RCT-Appeal No.63/09) 2003 AIHC 2457 and Devinder Pal Sehgal and another Vs. M/s Partap Steel Rolling Mills Pvt. Ltd. & others, JT 2001 (10) SC 463. 6- The averments made in the application u/order IX rule 13 CPC read with Section 144 and 151 CPC itself mentions the reasons as to how the application was moved on 13/4/2009. The formal application u/section 5 of the Limitation Act was also moved by the respondent on the same facts. The question whether there was sufficient cause for setting aside ex parte decree dated 20/11/2008 and whether there was sufficient cause for condonation of delay are in fact inter-mixed which according to the learned Addl. Rent Controller, could not be decided without affording the parties an opportunity to lead evidence. Therefore, it cannot be said by any stretch of imagination that learned Addl. Rent Controller ought to have decided the application u/section 5 of the Limitation Act first, or that an application u/Order IX rule 13 CPC could not be fixed for evidence without first deciding the application u/section 5 of the Limitation Act.
Delhi District Court Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Surender Pal vs Raj Singh And Ors on 3 August, 2016

The application itself was filed on 10.03.2016 along with affidavit of the petitioner. There was a delay of 3 days in moving the 3 of 6 ::: Downloaded on - 14-09-2016 05:24:26 ::: CM No.10339-CII of 2016 in CR No.1845 of 2013 4 application for restoration of the petition which according to learned counsel for the applicant-petitioner can be condoned without moving application for condonation of delay and in view of averments made in the application for restoration. [7]. The reliance was placed upon Universal Builders and Contractors Vs. Sheila Singh Uppal and others, 2009(2) PLR (Delhi) 47 and Nand Singh and Estate Officer, 1992(2) R.R.R. 516 wherein it was held that filing of application in writing under Section 5 of limitation Act is not essential. Delay can be condoned even on oral application if sufficient cause for causing delay is shown by the party. According to learned counsel, filing of application with delay of 3 days was not such omission as would warrant dismissal of the same in the absence of application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. [8].
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 1 - Full Document
1   2 Next