Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 8 of 8 (0.49 seconds)
Documents citing Kishan Bharwany vs V.P. Aggarwal on 8 April, 2002

1 Ashutosh Ahlulwalia vs . Joseph Samuel Anr. on 17 February, 2012

Plaintiff has further relied upon another case decided by Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court titled as M/s Universal Fasteners and Ors. vs. Bank of Baroda and Anr. in the suit titled as Kishan Bharwany vs. V.P. Aggarwal, Hon'ble Delhi High Court had directed decreeing of a suit of the plaintiff after the defendant failed to apply for leave to defend within 10 days despite service of summons for judgment. There was no question of any delay in filing the application for leave to defend, as the tenant in the case, relied upon on behalf of the plaintiff, has failed to appear and then suit was decreed.
Delhi District Court Cites 2 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

National Small Industries Corp. Ltd. vs Myson Electronics P. Ltd. & Ors on 29 August, 2016

12. Mention may be made of Kishan Bharwany Vs. V.P. Aggarwal (2002) 62 DRJ 731 where it was held by this Court that the purpose of filing address at the stage of entering appearance is to ensure that the summons for judgment are served upon defendant at the latest address as provided by the defendant, so as to avoid passing of the decree in his absence; if defendant intentionally furnishes such address on which he cannot be served, he does so at his peril; furnishing of address assumes additional importance if the summons of the suit are served by way of substituted service.
Delhi High Court Cites 13 - Cited by 2 - R S Endlaw - Full Document

M/S Vintex Creations Pvt. Ltd vs Shri Bhavneet Walia on 21 November, 2011

4 Arguments on behalf of the plaintiff were mainly on the point of failure of the defendant to file application for leave to defend in time and it was insisted that the plaintiff is entitled to a decree straight away. On behalf of the plaintiff, reliance was placed on a case decided by Hon'ble Delhi High Court, titled as "Kishan Bharwany Vs. V. P. Aggarwal", 2002 (62) DRJ 731, which was the case where service was effected by way of substituted service by publication as summons for judgments could not be served at the address given. The plaintiff was held entitled to the judgment on failure of the defendant to apply for leave to defend within the prescribed period of 10 days. Affidavit was filed on behalf of the defendant on 23.03.2011. The summons for judgment were directed to be issued to the defendant vide order dated 21.01.2011, and as per the report, dated 26.02.2011, the defendant was stated to have left the place. Vide order dated 09.03.2011, summons for judgment were directed to be issued agian to the defendant in the address given by the defendant, while putting his appearance in the Court. The next date of hearing was 05.04.2011. There is no report, as regards the summons for judgment issued for 05.04.2011, as per order dated 09.03.2011. The report dated 26.02.2011 was considered by the Court and summons for judgment were directed to be issued again to the defendant at the address given, in the application for putting up appearance. Instead of moving a formal application for leave to defend, defendant has filed an affidavit, disclosing the facts which in opinion of the defendant entitled him to defend the suit. So, in the circumstances, it could not be held that the defendant had failed to apply for leave to defend within 10 days from the service of summons Contd....// ­4­ for judgment. The plaintiff is not entitled to judgment or decree merely because of failure of the defendant to move a formal application for leave to defend.
Delhi District Court Cites 2 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Ziaul Islam vs Anil Kr. Mehta on 6 March, 2025

14. In the present suit, the defendant, despite having entered appearance has deliberately furnished wrong address knowing full well that he is not residing at the given address. The plaintiff by effecting service at the given address as furnished by CS no. 638/2024 Ziaul Islam vs. Anil Kumar Mehta Page no. 4/5 the defendant is deemed to have served the defendant in accordance with the judgment passed by Delhi High Court in the matter of Kishan Bharwany vs. V.P Aggarwal; (2002) 97 DLT 723 and also in accordance with the provisions of Order XXXVII Rule 3(2) CPC which prescribes that unless otherwise ordered, all summons notices and other judicial processes, required to be served on the defendant shall be deemed to have been duly served on him if they are left at their address given by him for such service. In the present suit, the conduct of the defendant is writ at large who has left no stone unturned to evade the service of the summons and has given an incorrect address at the time of entering appearance at which address also the defendant is not found on the ground of his having been shifted long time ago. Accordingly, in view of the plaintiff having taken steps to serve the defendant of the summons for judgment, who could not be found at the furnished address is accordingly deemed to have served the defendant in terms of Order XXXVII Rule 3(2) CPC. The defendant till date despite having entered appearance on 13.11.2024 has failed to appear before the court nor has filed any leave to defend application within the prescribed period of 10 days in terms of Sub Rule 5 of Rule 3 of Order XXXVII CPC, the suit of the plaintiff is decreed for an amount of Rs. 5 Lacs with pendente lite and future interest @ 12% per annum with cost till the date of realization.
Delhi District Court Cites 2 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Muhammad Nafees Bukhari vs Anil Kr. Mehta on 6 March, 2025

14. In the present suit, the defendant, despite having entered appearance has deliberately furnished wrong address knowing full well that he is not residing at the given address. The plaintiff by effecting service at the given address as furnished by the defendant is deemed to have served the defendant in accordance with the Cs no. 639/2024 Muhammad Nafees vs. Anil Kumar Mehta Page no. 4/5 judgment passed by Delhi High Court in the matter of Kishan Bharwany vs. V.P Aggarwal; (2002) 97 DLT 723 and also in accordance with the provisions of Order XXXVII Rule 3(2) CPC which prescribes that unless otherwise ordered, all summons notices and other judicial processes, required to be served on the defendant shall be deemed to have been duly served on him if they are left at their address given by him for such service. In the present suit, the conduct of the defendant is writ at large who has left no stone unturned to evade the service of the summons and has given an incorrect address at the time of entering appearance at which address also the defendant is not found on the ground of his having been shifted long time ago. Accordingly, in view of the plaintiff having taken steps to serve the defendant of the summons for judgment, who could not be found at the furnished address is accordingly deemed to have served the defendant in terms of Order XXXVII Rule 3(2) CPC. The defendant till date despite having entered appearance on 13.11.2024 has failed to appear before the court nor has filed any leave to defend application within the prescribed period of 10 days in terms of Sub Rule 5 of Rule 3 of Order XXXVII CPC, the suit of the plaintiff is decreed for an amount of Rs. 7 Lacs with pendente lite and future interest @ 12% per annum with cost till the date of realization.
Delhi District Court Cites 2 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Sh. Naresh Bansal vs M/S. Marco Francesco Shoes (India) Pvt. ... on 20 January, 2020

6. Heard. In such view of the matter it appears that defendant no. 1 and 2 are not interested to submit arguments on their leave to defend. They were duty bound to inform Court about their correct address. Keeping in view the Rule 7 of Order XXXVII CPC the defendants who not appeared is hereby proceeded ex-parte who are defendant no. 1 and 2. On such proceeding of ex-parte of the said defendants u/R. 11 of Order IX CPC it tantamounts to not filing of leave to defend as arguments are not submitted on the same. Therefore in view of judgment titled Kishan Bharwany v. V.P. Aggarwal 2002(97) DLT 723 the plaintiff is held entitled to judgment forthwith in joint and several liability against the defendant no. 1 and 2.
Delhi District Court Cites 3 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1