Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 3 of 3 (0.26 seconds)

Chander Singh And Another vs Ramkaran And Another on 15 December, 2011

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the defendants had entered into a compromise with the plaintiff-respondent No.1 on 24.2.1998 and it was on account of the said compromise that they had considered that the suit shall be decided in terms thereof. The exparte proceedings and decree followed as plaintiff or his counsel had not appeared. He further submitted that the delay in filing the application could not be a ground for rejecting the application. He placed reliance on the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bhagmal and others v. Kunwar Lal and others, 2010 (3) RCR (Civil) 941 and Bombay High Court in Lachhiram Chudiwala (HUF) v. Bank of Rajasthan Limited, 2007(5) RCR (Civil) 420. It was next contended that the findings recorded by the courts below were perverse and this Court is competent to exercise revisional jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 0 - A K Mittal - Full Document
1