Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 4 of 4 (0.29 seconds)Mehtab Singh vs Tilak Raj Arora And Anr. on 13 October, 1987
He further submits that no doubt, the provisions of the Code of
Civil Procedure do not apply mutatis mutandis but the principles carved out
therein would be as per the ratio decidendi culled out by the Hon'ble
Division Bench of this Court rendered in Mehtab Singh vs. Tilak Raj
Arora and another ILR Punjab and Haryana 1988 (2) 50. The
application entertained by the Rent Controller was purportedly under Order
9 Rule 13 CPC but the fact remains that eviction order does not indicate that
respondent was proceeded against ex parte.
Section 15 in East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 [Entire Act]
Apollo International Ltd. vs Supriya Pharmaceuticals Ltd. on 5 February, 2016
In support of his aforementioned contentions, he relies upon the
judgment of the Hon'ble Delhi Court in Apollo International Limited vs.
Supriya Pharmaceuticals Limited 2016 (2) Civil Court Cases 324,
wherein, identical argument at the behest of the decree holder was raised but
the same was repelled and it was held that even if the judgment and decree
is passed as per the provisions of Order 8 Rule 10 CPC, it would be an ex
parte decree, therefore, the application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC would
be maintainable. As per the facts of the case as noticed, the application
4 of 8
::: Downloaded on - 01-10-2016 00:31:50 :::
CR No.5193 of 2016 (O&M) {5}
was/is maintainable and the Court had no occasion but to proceed further in
accordance with law, though it was accompanied by an application seeking
condonation of delay and issue regarding the same had also been framed
and thus, urges this Court for dismissal of the present revision petition.
1