Petitioners filed revision petitions challenging trial court orders granting defendants leave to defend under Order XXXVII Rule 3 CPC in a summary suit over a loan. After arguments, petitioners sought permission to withdraw and pursue their contention before the trial court.
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.
$~57 & 58
versus
ACCORD BUILDERS & ORS. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Aditya Kumar, Adv.
versus
ACCORD BUILDERS & ORS. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Aditya Kumar, Adv.
CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU
This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 30/05/2025 at 13:16:04
TARA VITASTA GANJU, J
MAY 26, 2025/r
Click here to check corrigendum, if any
This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 30/05/2025 at 13:16:04
1 issue framed by the court
Should leave to defend granted under Order XXXVII Rule 3 CPC be reconsidered given respondents' alleged admission of loan amount?
2 provisions across 1 enactments
Vikram Kochhar
Shweta Kochhar
Accord Builders
Others
Tara Vitasta Ganju
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
