The single-judge bench dismissed the writ petition challenging an order setting aside an ex-parte decree and directing a fresh disposal of the suit.
Petitioner's writ petition is dismissed. Trial court directed to dispose of Regular Civil Suit No.865 of 2001 as expeditiously as possible.
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.
906wp21712
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.217 OF 2012
Sau. Jayashri D. Deshmukh Versus Shri Ramchandra N. Mohite and Ors.
....Petitioner.
...Respondents.
Mr. S.V. Sadavarte, advocate for Petitioner. Mr. Vijay Killedar, advocate for respondents.
CORAM : RANJIT MORE, J.
DATED : December 18, 2012.
P.C.:
Heard Mr. Sadavarte and Mr. Killedar learned counsel
appearing for the respective parties.
2 By the impugned order, learned trial Judge allowed respondents' application under Order IX Rule 13 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (In short 'CPC') subject to payment of cost of Rs.3,000/to the petitioner. Trial Court has recorded findings that respondents have shown sufficient cause to set aside ex-parte decree passed in regular civil suit no.865 of 2001. These findings of the fact can not be interfered with
Shivgan
906wp21712
2
in writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The Petition is, therefore, dismissed.
3 In the year 2001, petitioner filed suit which was decreed exparte in the year 2005 and by the impugned order, ex-parte decree was set aside and now, suit has to be decided afresh. In these circumstances, trial Court is directed to dispose of Regular Civil Suit No.865 of 2001 as expeditiously as possible.
(RANJIT MORE, J.)
Shivgan
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court can interfere with the findings of the trial court in setting aside an ex-parte decree under Article 227.
Whether the impugned order setting aside the ex-parte decree and directing fresh disposal of the suit is correct.
3 provisions across 2 enactments
Sau. Jayashri D. Deshmukh
Shri Ramchandra N. Mohite
RANJIT MORE
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
