Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 14 (0.40 seconds)
Documents citing Atreyapurapu Venkata Subba Rao vs Atreyapurapu Venkata Shyamala on 8 September, 1989

Appellant vs Amit Sharma on 5 December, 2018

Rather in the matter of Atreyapurapu Venkata Subba Rao versus Atreyapurapu Venkata Shyamala   (supra),  Hon'ble   High   Court   of   Andhra   Pradesh   had observed that the power under section 151 CPC can be exercised to strike   out   the   defence.   Relying   on   these   observations,   learned counsel for appellant has argued that the learned trial court should have passed an order for striking of the defence of the respondent in view of non­compliance of directions of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi by respondent.
Delhi District Court Cites 22 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Soma Ramamohan Reddy vs Soma Saraswathi on 31 October, 2005

Sections 21,24 and 28 and Civil Procedure Code Section 151, Order11, Rule 21 -Trial Court striking out defence of the husband in a petition filed by wife for restitution of conjugal rights, for his absence when the case was posted for trial and for non-compliance with order of interim maintenance under Section 24, invoking Section 151, CPC - Not illegal -For enforcing such an order, striking out of defence can be resorted to without taking recourse to execution under Section 28, A.V. Subba Rao v. Shyamala 1990(1) ALT 132.
Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) Cites 23 - Cited by 4 - Full Document

Hema vs Parthasarathy on 31 July, 2002

(c) The Andhra Pradesh High Court in Atreyapurapu Venkata Subba Rao v. Atreyapurapu Venkata Shyamala, II (1990) DMC 486, had occasion to consider the question whether for the default to pay interim alimony, the defence of the husband can be struck of. The Court answered in the affirmative and ruled thus, "I am of the view that to secure the ends of justice and to prevent the abuse of the Court's process, striking out the defence can be resorted to under Section 151, CPC. The intention of the petitioner is to drive the respondent to take recourse to execution under Section 28 and to stay the main proceedings. If execution has to be resorted to staying the main proceedings, the petitioner would be achieving the object of protracting the proceedings. That would also be encouraging the parties to flout the order of the Court and to delay the proceedings which are expected to be expeditious. In such circumstances, striking out the defence of such a defaulting party would be a proper order and the trial Court was right in passing the said order."
Madras High Court Cites 20 - Cited by 5 - Full Document
1   2 Next