In a suit where defendants failed to file a written statement, the court decreed the plaintiff's prayers under Order 8 Rule 10 CPC while dismissing unpressed claims.
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. 945 of 1983
New Era Builders.. Plaintiff
versus
Naresh Athavale & ors..Defendants
...
Mr.Mahimtura for Plff
None for Defts
CORAM : D.G. KARNIK, J
DATED : 8th July 2005.
P.C.
1. Heard learned counsel for the plaintiff. None
present for the defendants. None of the defendants
have filed the written statement. Learned counsel
for the plaintiff states that in view of the fact
that the defendants have not filed the written
statement, the defendants would press only for
reliefs of money decree in terms of prayer clauses
2
(dd) and (i) and the suit may be heard under Order
8 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The
plaintiff specifically gives up rest of the claims
in the plaint. The defendants have not filed the
written statement. Suit of the plaintiff is
decreed in terms of the prayer clauses (dd) and (i)
under Order 8 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil
Procedure. Rest of the prayers are dismissed as
not pressed.
D.G.KARNIK, J
2 issues framed by the court
Whether suit can be decreed under Order 8 Rule 10 CPC when defendants forego written statement.
Whether plaintiff's concessions require dismissal of unpressed claims.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Naresh Athavale
D.G. Karnik
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court