Respondent sought withdrawal of a judgment dated 10.1.2002 as an ex parte order. The Bench observed the order was on merits, thus not ex parte, and dismissed the motion allowing a review petition.
Notice of Motion dismissed with liberty to file an application for review.
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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 303 OF 2002
IN
WRIT PETITION NO. 785 OF 1989
K.S. Srinivasan
..Petitioner
V/s.
N.Raghunathan Development Commissioner
(SSI) and Chairman of the Govering
Council I.D.E.M.I. and Anr.
..Respondents
M. Janardhanan for the Petitioner
None for the Respondents
CORAM : SHRI J.N.PATEL &
SHRI K.K.TATED, JJ.
DATE : 1ST AUGUST, 2008.
P.C.:
.By this Notice of Motion, Respondent No.1 seeks
setting aside the ex-parte order passed on 10th January,
2002 in the said Writ Petition. On going through the
order which is sought to be set aside which is annexed
to the Notice of Motion as Exh.-1, we find that the
decision is on merits and cannot be said to be an
ex-parte order and therefore, the appropriate remedy to
the aggrieved person is to seek review of the said order
rather than seeking the relief of setting aside of the
: 2 :
order by stating that it is an ex-parte order.
Therefore, we dismiss this Notice of Motion with liberty
to Respondent No.1 to file an application for review,
subject to law of limitation.
accordingly.
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the decision is ex parte warranting setting aside or requires review.
K.S. Srinivasan
N.Raghunathan
J.N. PATEL
K.K. TATED
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court