Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 4 of 4 (0.93 seconds)Rafiq & Anr vs Munshilal & Anr on 16 April, 1981
It
was stated that Mr. Ravindran the Principal Officer of the
defendant Company was out of town on that date. It was
submitted that because the defendant had acted on the basis
of the advice given by the advocate-on-record of the
defendant, there was sufficient cause to set aside the ex-
parte decree within the meaning of Order 9 rule 13 C.P.C.
The Trial Court dismissed the said application against which
an appeal was preferred by the defendant to the Calcutta
High Court. The appeal was heard by a
798
Division Bench and judgment pronounced in open court on
8.7.1991 dismissing the appeal. However, it appears, before
the judgment was signed by the learned Judges constituting
the Division Bench, an application was moved by the
defendant for alteration or modification and/or reconsidera-
tion of the said judgment mainly on the ground that the
defendants' counsel could not bring to the notice of the
Division Bench the decision of this Court in Rafiq and
another v. Munshilal and another, AIR 1981 SC 1400 and that
the said decision clearly supports the defendants, case.
The counsel for the plaintiff opposed the said request. He
submitted that once the judgment was pronounced in open
court, it was final and that matter cannot be reopened just
because a relevant decision was not brought to the notice of
the Court. After hearing the counsel for both the parties,
the Division Bench reopened the appeal on the ground that
"technicalities should not be allowed to stand in the way of
doing justice to the parties.'
Article 136 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Section 151 in The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [Entire Act]
1