Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 2 of 2 (0.41 seconds)Shriram Sardarmal Didwani vs Gourishankar Alias Rameshwar Joharmal on 15 December, 1959
This decision was followed in the case of Sardarmal v. Joharmal at p. 906 of the same report . The purport of this decision, in short, is that the 'appearance' under Order 9, has a technical meaning and does not mean mere physical presence. When a party does not want to conduct his case in person but engages a lawyer, the appearance of such party must be an appearance through that lawyer when the suit in question is called on for hearing. After the rejection of the petition for adjournment it could not, therefore, be said that the petitioner had appeared in the suit and that, accordingly, her petition under Order 9, Rule 9, was not maintainable. On the other hand, I am constrained to hold that the Courts below have misdirected themselves upon the question before them under Order 9, Rule 9, and have taken a wrong approach.
1