Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 8 of 8 (0.19 seconds)Collector Land Acquisition, Anantnag & ... vs Mst. Katiji & Ors on 19 February, 1987
In case of Collector, Land Acquisition, Ananinag and Another v.
Mst. Katiji and Others, AIR 1987 SC 1353, the apex Court while considering a
case of condonation of delay on an application Under Section 5 of the Limitaion Act, observed that the approach should be liberal aad justice oriented and
for that laid down six principles; one of them is, when substantial justice and
technical considerations a repitted against each other, cause of substantial
justice deserves to be preferred for the other side cannot claim to have vested
right in injustice being done because of a non-deliberate delay, as a litigant
does not get benefit by resorting to delay, in fact he runs a serious risk.
Article 123 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Smt. Chhutbai And Anr. vs Madanlal And Anr. on 5 May, 1989
10. The law is settled that as far as possible the personal service is to
be affected, but, the defendant who is served by publication, appears and makes
a prayer to supply a copy of the plaint to contest the suit, the Court is bound
to order to supply the copy of the plaint so as to enable the defendant to
know, the concise statement thereof and the particular claim brought by the
plaintiff against him, and make up the mind against the claim, that is why
Order 5 Rule 2 of C.P.C. provides that annexing copy of plaint to summons
is mandatory and if, the summons are searved without supplying the copy of
the plaint, the service cannot be deemed to be valid. See a Division Bench
decision of this Court in the case of Smt, Chhutbai and Another v Madanlal and
Another, AIR 1989 MP 330.
Section 28 in The Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 [Entire Act]
Section 5 in The Limitation Act, 1963 [Entire Act]
The Limitation Act, 1963
Sushila Bai W/O Ram Nihore Patel vs Ram Nihore Jagatdhari Prasad Patel on 15 October, 1990
True, the defendant ought to have appeared on 22.1.1987, but nothing was
done on 22.1.87, as the Presiding Officer was on leave, hence, the case was
adjourned by the clerk of the Court to 9.3.87 which was not the date for hearing and the party's absence on that date did not give jurisdiction to Court to Proceed ex-parte, which is the consistent view of this Court. See 1991 MPLJ 329, Sushila Bai v. Ram Nihore Jagatdhari Prasad Patel, 1986 C.C.LJ. Note 39, Mohanlal Brijlal Partnership Firm v. Manga, and 1978 Vol.
1