Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 16 (0.21 seconds)
Amar Kaur vs Badal Singh And Others on 24 May, 2010 cites

G.P. Srivastava vs Shri R.K. Raizada & Ors on 3 March, 2000

(7) The power to issue a writ of certiorari and the supervisory jurisdiction are to be exercised sparingly and only in appropriate cases where the judicial conscience of the High Court dictates it to act lest a gross failure of justice or grave injustice should occasion........." In the instant case, it cannot be said that the trial court, by passing the impugned order, has assumed jurisdiction which it does not have or has failed to exercise jurisdiction which it does have or the jurisdiction though available, has been exercised by the trial court in a manner not permitted by law and failure of justice or grave injustice has occasioned thereby. Consequently, in exercise of supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, interference in the impugned order of the trial court is not warranted. Reference may also be made to two judgments of this Court i.e. The Punjab National Bank vs. Sita Ram and C. R. No. 4890 of 2009 12 others reported as (1991-1) P. L. R. 12 and Badal Singh and another vs. Amar Kaur and others reported as (2005-2) P. L. R. 789 and a judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of G. P. Srivastava vs. R. K. Raizada and others reported as (2000) 3 Supreme Court Cases 54. The ratio of law laid down in these judgments is that the Court should be liberal in setting aside ex-parte decree and a party should be allowed to contest the litigation and substantial justice should be done. In view of these judgments also, it would not be desirable to interfere with the impugned order of the trial court.
Supreme Court of India Cites 1 - Cited by 314 - Full Document

Ajita Sharma @ Sweety Alias Babi vs Rakesh Kumar Sharma on 13 February, 1998

Learned counsel for the petitioner relied on judgment of this C. R. No. 4890 of 2009 13 Court in the case of Ajita Sharma @ Sweety alias Babi vs. Rakesh Kumar Sharma reported as (1998-2) P. L. R. 170. However, facts of the said case were quite different. In that matrimonial case under the Hindu Marriage Act, filed by the husband against the wife, the wife had even moved transfer application in the High Court for transfer of the case. In these circumstances, it was held that the wife could not plead that she had not been served with notice of the case. The wife was fully aware of the pending petition filed by the husband under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act. So, the said judgment has no applicability to the facts of the instant case.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 7 - V S Aggarwal - Full Document

Salil Dutta vs T.M. And M.C. Private Ltd on 5 February, 1993

Similarly, judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Salil Dutta vs. T. M. and M. C. Private Ltd. reported as (1993) 2 Supreme Court Cases 185 cited by counsel for the petitioner, has no applicability to the instant case. It was held in that case that as a rule, improper advice of Advocate cannot be accepted as sufficient cause for non- appearance by the defendant. This proposition of law has no applicability to the instant case. Moreover, facts in that case were quite different.
Supreme Court of India Cites 4 - Cited by 147 - B P Reddy - Full Document

Mahabir Singh vs Subhash & Ors on 12 October, 2007

Learned counsel for the petitioner also contended that application filed by defendants no.1 and 2 is barred by limitation. Reliance in support of this contention has been placed on judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mahabir Singh vs. Subhash and others reported as 2008 (1) R. C. R. (Civil) 32. The contention cannot be accepted. Respondents no.1 and 2 pleaded that they acquired knowledge of C. R. No. 4890 of 2009 14 the ex-parte decree when Bailiff visited the spot. The Bailiff visited the spot on 07.10.1998 and application by defendants no.1 and 2 for setting aside ex-parte decree was moved on 31.10.1998. So, the said application is within limitation. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that respondent no.1, while appearing as AW-2, deposed that he acquired knowledge of the ex-parte decree from Gurcharan Singh, but Gurcharan Singh, who is attorney of respondent no.3, while appearing as AW-3, stated that he had no knowledge of the litigation till 22.11.1999. This apparent discrepancy does not help the petitioner. Respondents no.1 and 2 filed the application on 31.10.1998 and pleaded that they learnt of decree when Bailiff visited the spot and Bailiff had visited the spot on 07.10.1998, when defendants no.1 and 2 came to know of the decree. The Bailiff also later on visited the spot on 22.11.1999, when respondents no.3 and 4 came to know of the ex-parte decree.
Supreme Court of India Cites 4 - Cited by 35 - S B Sinha - Full Document

Smt. Yallawwa vs Smt. Shantavva on 8 October, 1996

In the case of Smt. Yallawwa vs. Smt, Shantavva reported as JT 1996 (9) S. C. 218, Hon'ble Supreme Court held that substituted service under Order 5 Rule 20 CPC could be resorted to only as a last resort when defendant could not be served by ordinary procedure. In the present case, no sincere effort was made to serve summons on the defendants in the suit in ordinary course or by registered A. D. post and therefore, substituted service by publication in newspaper was not sufficient service.
Supreme Court of India Cites 16 - Cited by 57 - S B Majmudar - Full Document
1   2 Next