Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 13 (0.47 seconds)Sangram Singh vs Election Tribunal, Kotah,Bhurey Lal ... on 22 March, 1955
Under the Limitation Act no period is prescribed for filing
an application for setting aside the order proceeding ex
parte. Under Rule 7 of Order 9 of the Code the defendant is
allowed to file an application or before the next date of
hearing and if he assigns good cause for his non-appearance
on the previous date of hearing the Court may set aside the
order proceedings ex parte.... There is no rule that an
application under Order 9, Rule 7 is to be filed within 30
days from the date of the order proceeding ex parte....
In Sangram Singh v. Election Tribunal, Kotah , after
13/20
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRP.No. 2674 of 2022
extracting the relevant provision Order 9, Rule 7, Order 8
Rule 10, their Lordships observed:
Palani Nathan vs Devanai Ammal on 14 December, 1987
The said decision was followed by our High Court in the
decision reported in Palani Nathan v. Devanai Animal ,
While considering a similar question, this Court held thus:
Bhanu Kumar Jain vs Archana Kumar & Anr on 17 December, 2004
14. As regard the stage of the proceedings at
which the Petition under Order 9, Rule 7, C.P.C.,
could be filed, the Honourable Supreme Court in
Bhanu Kumar Jain v. Archana Kumar, 2005 (1)
10/20
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRP.No. 2674 of 2022
CTC 368, was pleased to hold as follows:
Pilla Reddy And Ors. vs Thimmaraya Reddy And Ors. on 27 August, 1996
(b) Pilla Reddy and Ors v. Thimmaraya Reddy and Ors,
reported in “(1997) 1 MLJ 37” and the relevant paragraphs are extracted
hereunder:-
Article 227 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Arjun Singh vs Mohindra Kumar & Ors on 13 December, 1963
In Arjun Singh v. Mohindra Kumar . Their Lordships
of the Supreme Court while considering the principle of res
judicata with respect to the order passed under Order 9,
Rules 7 and 13, held:
The Limitation Act, 1963
V.E.N.K.R.M.A. Ramanathan Chettiar ... vs The Madura Sri Meenakshi Sundareswarar ... on 27 August, 1937
12. This Court in N.
Ramanathan v. Meenakshi-sundaram, 2001 (4)
CTC 8, has held that even if the defendant is not in
a position to substantiate the reason assigned for his
non-appearance, his right to participate in the
pending trial proceedings cannot be denied. Though
the second defendant has come out with some weak
reasons for not attending the hearings before the
Trial Court, the Court finds that it would be unjust
in the light of the aforesaid ratios to deny his right
to participate in the trial proceedings which is
pending adjudication.
Valleeswari vs Kamalakannan on 21 January, 2010
(a) Valleeswari v. Kamalakannan, reported in “2010 SCC Online
Mad 559 = 2010 (1) MWN (Civil) 581 and the relevant Paragraph Nos.11 to
14 are extracted hereunder:-