Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 15 (0.32 seconds)Section 115 in The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [Entire Act]
The Ahmedabad City Courts Act, 1961
Custodian General, Evacuee Property, ... vs Shanti Sarup Prabh Dayal on 22 May, 1961
The Municipal Corporation Of Delhi vs Shri Suresh Chandra Jaipuria And Anr. on 3 November, 1976
Again in the case of Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Suresh Chandra Jaipuria and Anr. , it is held by the Apex Court that finding of facts recorded by fact finding Court cannot be interfered with by the High Court while exercising powers under Section 115 of the Code. In view of the settled legal position, I am of the opinion that no case is made out by the petitioners for interfering with the impugned order and the revision application is liable to be dismissed.
The New Ashapuri Co-Operative Housing ... vs Arvindkumar Manilal Patel on 27 August, 1973
Similarly, in the case of New Ashapuri Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. and Anr. (supra) the Division Bench has considered the question of revisional powers under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure while considering the question whether leave to defend the case should be granted conditionally or unconditionally. This decision is not of much assistance to Mr. Nanavati, learned Counsel for the petitioners because in the present case I am dealing with order passed under Order XXXVII Rule 4 of C.P.C. and not an order passed under Order XXXVII Rule 3 of C.P.C. The petitioners have neither pleaded in the application for setting aside ex parte decree nor in the memorandum of present revision application that because of their weak financial condition they are not in a position to deposit Rs. 3,00,000/- in the Court. It may be mentioned that ex parte decree for a sum of Rs. 50,20,770-86 together with interest and cost was passed by the Court on September 26, 1991 and the Court was considering the question of setting aside the same in the month of March 1997. Under the circumstances, direction requiring the petitioners to deposit Rs. 3,00,000/- cannot be termed as onerous or unreasonable so as to call for interference of the Court in the present revision application which is filed under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure. It is relevant to notice that though the Court has called upon the petitioners to deposit a sum of Rs. 3,00,000/- in the Court, no direction is given by the Court to pay any amount therefrom to the respondent. On what terms the ex parte decree should have been set aside itself is a matter within the discretion to be exercised by the learned trial Judge judicially and this Court would be very slow to interfere in revision with such discretionary orders.
Section 122 in The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [Entire Act]
Section 151 in The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [Entire Act]
Article 227 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Keshavlal Parbhudas Chokshi Firm And ... vs Manubhai I. Vyas on 2 February, 1967
To a limited extent, Rules 142 to 148-A of the Ahmedabad City Civil Courts Rules, 1961, are inconsistent with the amended Rules of Order XXXVII C.P.C. as found in case of Keshavlal v. Manubhai (1968) IX GLR 177. So far as Courts other than the Courts established under Ahmedabad City Courts Act, 1961, are concerned, provisions of Order XXX.VII C.P.C. would apply to classes of suits enumerated in Sub-rule (2) of Rule 1 ot the said Order. The plaintiff is entitled to institute a summary suit by presenting a plaint, if the provisions of Order XXXVII applies to his ease. The plaint has to contain particulars which are specified in Rule 2(1) of Order XXXVII C.P.C. The summons of the suit has to be in Form No. 4 as specified in Appendix B to C.P.C The defendant is not entitled to defend the suit unless he enters an appearance and in default of his entering an appearance, not only the allegations in the plaint must be deemed to be admitted, but the plaintiff is entitled to a decree for the sum mentioned in the summons, together with interest at the rate specified up to the date of decree and such sum for costs. In a suit to which Order XXXVII applies, the defendant has to enter an appearance either in person or by pleader within 10 days of service of summons. On the day of entering the appearance, notice of such appearance is required to be given by the defendant to the plaintiff or his pleader. If the defendant enters an appearance, the plaintiff is entitled to serve on the defendant a summons for judgment in the prescribed form returnable not less than 10 days from the date of service. The summons for judgment must be supported by an affidavit verifying the cause of action and the amount claimed and stating that in his belief there is no defence to the suit. The defendant, within 10 days from the service of such summons for judgment has to disclose on oath or otherwise, such facts as may be deemed sufficient to entitle him to defend the suit and has to apply on such summons for leave to defend the suit. The leave to defend has to be granted or refused having regard to the factors indicated in Sub-rule (5) of Rule 3 of Order XXXVII. If the defendant has not applied for leave to defend or if such application has been made and is refused, then the plaintiff is entitled to judgment forthwith at the hearing of summons for judgment. In view of the provisions of Rule 148-A of the Ahmedabad City Civil Courts Rules, 1961, it is evident that Rules in Chapter XI are in supersession of Rules 2 and 3 of Order XXXVII C.P.C. as amended by the High Court of Bombay under Section 122 of C.P.C, but Rules 4 to 7 of Order XXXVII of C.P.C. are applicable to summary suits which may be instituted under Chapter XI of the said Rules. The scheme envisaged under Chapter XI of Ahmedabad City Civil Court Rules, 1961, as well as scheme contemplated by Order XXXVII C.P.C makes it abundantly clear that the Court can pass a decree against the defendant in the following circumstances : (1) When the defendant fails to enter the appearance within 10 days from the date of service of summons or within the time which may be extended by the Court, (2) When the defendant does not apply for leave to defend the suit, (3) When the defendant fails to comply with the condition imposed by the Court while granting leave to defend the suit and (4) When application submitted by the defendant seeking leave to defend the suit is rejected by the Court.