Raju v. Shakuntala & Ors.
Case brief
What is this about?
The High Court allowed the appeal and set aside the ex-parte judgment and decree dismissing a partition suit. The impugned order is remanded to the trial court to decide afresh in light of the appearance of respondent no.1, allowing both parties to lead evidence.
What did the court decide?
The ex-parte judgment and decree are set aside; the suit is remanded to the Trial Court for a fresh trial.
What the court decided
$~1.
- IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
- RFA No.389/2014, CM No.13747/2014 (for stay) & CM No.13748/2014 (u/O 41 R-27 for filing additional documents). RAJU ..... Appellant Through: Mr. H.S. Gautam and Ms. Neha Singh, Advs.
versus
SHAKUNTALA & ORS ..... Respondents Through: Respondent no.1 in person.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW
O R D E R % 14.01.2016
- This appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 impugns the ex-parte judgment and decree, dated 16th May, 2014 of the Court of the Additional District Judge (ADJ)-06 (West): Delhi Tis Hazari Courts, of dismissal of a suit filed by the appellant for partition of immovable property and ancillary reliefs.
- Notice of the appeal was issued and vide order dated 19th August, 2015 the five respondents were proceeded against ex parte .
Issues for consideration
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the ex-parte judgment and decree dismissing the partition suit can be set aside.
Whether an order directing remand of the suit for a fresh trial is appropriate when a previously absent respondent appears.
Whether additional evidence should be admitted under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC.
Parties & counsel
- appellant
RAJU
- respondent
SHAKUNTALA
- respondent
Respondent no.2
- respondent
Respondent no.3
- respondent
Respondent no.4
- respondent
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court