Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 2 of 2 (0.46 seconds)Pal Singh vs Harjit Singh And Others on 31 July, 2012
In the light of observations made by this Court in Sat
Pal Singh vs. Harjit Singh, 1998(2) I.L.R, Punjab and
Haryana, 149, the trial Court was required to examine the stand
of the defendant as to find out whether the facts stated in the
application indicate that he has a substantial defence to raise or
the defence put up by the defendant was frivolous or vaxatious.
In the event of not causing appearance by the defendant, the
trial Court would have resorted to pass the decree, but having
not done so, the Court was under obligation to decide the
application for condonation of delay in not appearing before the
Court within 10 days. Instead of passing the said order, the
Court proceeded to pass the order vide which defendant was
proceeded against ex parte. Even though the application for
setting aside the ex parte order dated 19.03.2014 was filed on
19.01.2016, but the plaintiff also kept on seeking adjournments
as per interlocutory orders placed on record.
[13]. The cause of justice cannot be thrown at the verge of
6 of 7
::: Downloaded on - 13-08-2018 00:52:10 :::
CR No.7984 of 2016 (O&M) 7
technicality. Evidently, the application under Order 37 Rule 3
Sub Rule 7 CPC is still pending. Defendant has already
deposited the requisite amount as per order dated 28.11.2016
passed by this Court.
1