Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 9 of 9 (0.35 seconds)
Documents citing Kuldip Kaur vs Gurdeep Singh on 13 August, 1993

Dalbir Kaur And Anr vs Kashmir Singh And Others on 2 March, 2022

In Kuldip Kaur (supra), it has been held that power to set aside ex parte order should be liberally exercised. The expression 'good cause' should be interpreted widely and not confined to the restricted interpretation placed on the expression 'sufficient cause' as mentioned in Order 9 Rule 13 CPC. There is no quarrel with this proposition of law. The question is whether the JDs have been able to show 'good cause'. They failed to put in appearance despite valid service and submission of an application after seven months cannot qualify as 'good cause'. Hence, reliance upon the judgment is misplaced.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 1 - S Mittal - Full Document

Kanta vs Dharam Singh on 2 March, 2015

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner had never engaged a counsel to appear on her behalf as she had not received any summons. In fact, petitioner had immediately approached the trial Court for setting aside the ex-parte order dated 16.9.2011, on coming to know about passing of the said order. Learned counsel has placed reliance on Kuldip Kaur vs. Gurdeep Singh 1993(2) PLR 703 wherein it was held as under:-
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 0 - Sabina - Full Document

Atul Lalwani vs Dilip Sukhadia & Ors on 14 December, 2017

2 of 5 ::: Downloaded on - 24-12-2017 21:05:48 ::: CR No. 7419 of 2013 (O&M) . -3- The counsel for the petitioner had submitted that the suit had been filed by the father-in-law of the petitioner and his (petitioner) relation with his wife were not good and the summons were intentionally sent at the Gurgaon address whereas he was a resident of Bhopal and the photocopy of the A.D. Card would show that service was sought to be effected at Gurgaon and the A.D. Card does not bear his signatures and he was proceeded ex parte. It was urged that the petitioner came to know of the pendency of the petition when he received summons from the High Court as the stay application filed by the plaintiff had been dismissed and they had approached the High Court in a revision and it was in August 2012 that he came to know of the case. The counsel further submitted that the father of the petitioner had died and his mother also died later on. The counsel had also referred to the Order 9 Rule 6 of CPC and to the High Court Rules & Orders, specifically to Chapter 1(k) Rule 4 and it was urged that when the Court was closed on a date fixed for hearing then the ex parte proceedings could not have been taken out against him and petitioner be permitted to join the proceedings and file the written statement. Reliance was placed upon Ram Pal and others Vs. Jagrup Singh and others 1987 PLJ 355, Kuldip Kaur Vs. Gurdeep Singh 1993(3) RRR 696 and Tara Chand and another Vs. Kabul Chand and others 1964(2) ILR (Punjab) 880.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 0 - A Chaudhry - Full Document

Jagtar Singh vs Jaswinder Singh And Ors on 20 July, 2015

Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently contended that the approach of the trial Court for setting aside the ex parte proceedings against the defendants under Order 9 Rule 7 CPC should be liberal. He has relied upon Kuldip Kaur Vs. Gurdeep Singh, 1993 (2) PLR 703 and Karnataka Handloom Development Corporation Ltd. Vs. B.S. Chopra, 1999(3) PLR (Delhi) 44 wherein the application filed after three years of passing of ex parte order had been allowed and Ramhet and others Vs. Ajaypal Singh and others, 2003 (2) RCR (Civil) 322 to contend that the application under Order 9 Rule 7 CPC filed by the defendants should be liberally allowed by the Courts.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 0 - M M Bedi - Full Document
1