The single-judge High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging an order setting aside a decree due to alleged ex-parte proceedings. No substantive adjudication was made; the court dismissed the petition without interference.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 40
Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 6489 of 2019
Petitioner :- Sachin Saini Respondent :- Smt. Meenakshi Saini @ Usha Counsel for Petitioner :- Pradhumn Kumar Pandey
Hon'ble Manoj Kumar Gupta,J.
The petitioner, being aggrieved by order dated 25.7.2019, by which the application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC has been allowed and the decree passed in Original Suit No.1381 of 2015 has been set aside, has approached this Court by way of the instant petition.
The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the impugned order is exparte, having been passed without proper service of summon upon the petitioner.
In case, the order is ex-parte, without proper service of notice of the application, the petitioner has remedy of filing recall application before the same court.
Accordingly, without interfering with the impugned order, the petition is disposed of with aforesaid liberty to the petitioner.
(Manoj Kumar Gupta, J.)
Order Date :- 11.9.2019 skv
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the petition challenging the setting aside of a decree on grounds of non-service of summons could be allowed.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Sachin Saini
Smt. Meenakshi Saini @ Usha
Manoj Kumar Gupta
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
