Suit dismissed for default. The plaintiff failed to appear and did not file the required affidavit evidence within the direction dated 10th October, 2003, leading to dismissal under Order 9 Rule 3 CPC.
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.
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
SUIT NO.248 of 1983
Narinder J.Bedi
.. Plaintiff
versus
Leela Scottish Lace P.Ltd .. Defendant
Mr.Jose George i/b M.M.Shetty for Plaintiff
None for Defendant
CORAM : D.G. KARNIK, J
DATED : 11th August, 2005.
P.C.
1. None present for the plaintiff and the
defendants. By an order dated 10th October, 2003
the plaintiff was directed to adduce evidence on
affidavit. The affidavit has not been filed. The
plaintiff is also not present in the court. The
suit is dismissed under Order 9 Rule 3 of the Code
of Civil Procedure.
D.G.KARNIK, J
1 issue framed by the court
Whether an acrimonious suit ought to be dismissed for non-appearance of parties and non-filing of evidence.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
D.G. Karnik
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court