Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 5 of 5 (1.53 seconds)

M.K. Prasad vs P.Arumugam on 30 July, 2001

15. There is nothing on record to show that the notices of transfers of matters from Small Causes Court, Greater Bombay to Bandra Bench were issued or intimated to the parties. The general notice even to the Advocate, if any, but want of such intimation to the petitioner would definitely cause great prejudice and injustice to the person like the petitioner. The petitioner, as noted, received the notice of execution from Bandra Bench of Small Causes Court whereas admittedly the Suit was filed in Small Causes Court at Bombay. The non-communication of transfer of matters from one Court to another and further proceeding and no communication from the Advocate, in my view, if ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 14:02:46 ::: ( 10 ) causes injustice and results into such exparte decree of eviction need to be considered as a sufficient ground/reason to condone the delay and to set aside the exparte decree in the interest of justice. In such cases, it is difficult to expect the explanation of day-by-day or month-by-month or year-by-year delays in the present case on both counts even before the passing of exparte decree, as well as, after passing of exparte decree. Therefore, the limitation of 30 days from the date of decree and/or from the date of knowledge circumstances of ig of decree, the in case, the as present contemplated facts and under Article 123 of the Limitation Act, 1963 need to be considered in favour of the petitioner. ( AIR 2001 S.C. 2497 - M.K.Prasad v. P. Arumugam; AIR 1987 SC 1353- Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag & anr.
Supreme Court of India Cites 8 - Cited by 576 - Full Document

Mahabir Singh vs Subhash & Ors on 12 October, 2007

v.Mst. Katiji & ors. and 2008 (1) SCC 358-Mahabir Singh v. Subhash & ors.). ors.) 16. In view of above facts and circumstances of the case to sub-serve the ends of justice, I am inclined to take liberal approach in the present matter as, according to me, the petitioner has shown sufficient cause and as absence and delay was not malafide and intentional. ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 14:02:46 ::: ( 11 )
Supreme Court of India Cites 4 - Cited by 35 - S B Sinha - Full Document
1