A special petition was dismissed as withdrawn. The court noted the petition benefited from a reference to a prior judgment but ultimately disposed of the matter by granting liberty to file a review application.
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.
$~35
M/S JAY ACE TECHNOLOGIES ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Karunesh Tandon, Advocate
versus
MADAN LAL NANDA & SONS ..... Respondent
Through
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K.GAUBA
O R D E R
% 09.02.2018
The petitioner is defendant in the civil suit (CS 128/2015) instituted by the respondent. He claims to have been served with the summons on 21.11.2015. He appeared, as per submission, for the first time in the trial Court on 08.02.2016 but since written statement had not been filed till then the opportunity was closed. He moved an application on 10.02.2016 seeking recall of the said order tendering therewith the written statement. The application thus moved was considered and disposed of on 20.12.2017 whereby the request was declined. It is not understood as to why it took such a long time for the trial Court to consider the said application. The request to place on record the written statement which had been tendered with the application within three months of the date of stated service has been declined with reference to observations of this Court in CM (M) 813/2017, Leena Devi Vs. Sunil Aggarwal , decided on 02.08.2017. CM(M) 163/2018 page 1 of 2
It is noted that the trial judge though conscious of the provision contained in Order VIII Rule 1 CPC has not dwelt on the request of the petitioner to extend the time for filing of the written statement within 90 days from the date of service of summons.
The counsel for the petitioner wants to withdraw the present petition and the applications filed therewith and instead seeks liberty to file a review application.
The captioned petition and the applications filed therewith are dismissed as withdrawn with liberty as prayed granted.
Dasti.
R.K.GAUBA, J
FEBRUARY 09, 2018 Yg
page 2 of 2
CM(M) 163/2018
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Leena Devi Vs. Sunil AggarwalReferred¶12
CM (M) 813/2017, Leena Devi Vs. Sunil Aggarwal
M/S JAY ACE TECHNOLOGIES
MADAN LAL NANDA & SONS
R.K. Gauba
As recorded by the court registry
A petition under Article 227 of the Constitution invoking the High Court's supervisory jurisdiction over subordinate civil courts.
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
