Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 5 of 5 (0.17 seconds)
Sha Vindichand Hastimal And Co. vs Central Bank Of India on 19 October, 1994 cites

B. Ganganna vs Returning Officer, M.A. Venkataswamy ... on 15 April, 1981

3. The respondent - Bank has filed a suit for recovery of a sum of Rs. 9,72,241/-. When the suit was posted for evidence, the respondent remained absent and therefore the suit came to be dismissed for default. On that very day, a representative of the respondent-Bank appeared before the Court and filed an application under Section 151 CPC for setting aside the order of dismissal of the suit. The trial Court has allowed that application. The only grievance of the petitioners is that there is a specific provision in CPC for setting aside the order of dismissal of the suit for default and the respondent instead of resorting to that specific provision of law, has filed an application under Section 151 CPC invoking the inherent powers of the Court to set aside that order. The learned Counsel for the petitioners relied on a Decision in the case of B. GANGANNA v. RETURNING OFFICER AND ORS. ILR (Karnataka) 1981(2) 1543, wherein this Court has held that if a suit is dismissed for default or non-prosecution, the aggrieved party may apply for setting aside of order of dismissal under Order 9 Rule 9 and that when there is a specific provision, the plaintiff cannot invoke the inherent powers of the Court. The question is whether this Court should exercise its revisional powers under Section 115 CPC to set aside such an order.
Karnataka High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 3 - Full Document
1