High Court allowed application to set aside ex-parte proceedings and permit participation in suit after seven-year delay, imposing Rs. 30,000 costs. Court held ends of justice met despite lack of explanation.
Writ application allowed; impugned order set aside; petitioner permitted to participate in suit with imposition of Rs. 30,000 costs.
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 FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR
ORDER
""ac,%wir&$~~F*.4:'I">a.:;.;.ii %"t;~i%ol.
Mr. Rajat Ranjan for.,pgfUpj&!L~~~~~ . "" ,,. Mr. Prahlad Sharma fg$ res$dnde"nts:,:.'i"iJ! r ad, G-1-4 4 %,
<><><>
BY THE COURT:
Aggrieved of the order dated 27ff' May, 2016; the petitioners/defendants have instituted the present writ application for their application under Order 9 Rule 7 of the Civil Procedure Code,
L
1908 (for short "CPC"), has been declined.
was not a proper service.
*. I respondents while su.ppo&l.ng . "" t-3 -4 ' .' "-8 sthe,sm~mg(;led,..,,order 2 $4 46 'c-rrSnx -4 ;;;:4 dated 27" May, 2016, vehemently argued that the petitioners, despite service on 23rd December, 2008, did not appear and participate in the proceedings before the Court below and it was only on 20th February, 2015, an application under Order 9 Rule 7 of CPC was instituted. The petitioners have failed to furnish any reason for not availing of the remedy in law
4
and have deliberately delayed the proceedings until February, 2015.
proceedings, setting aside ex-parte proceedings,with the imposition of
costs of Rs.30,000/- (Rupees : Thirty Thousands).
are allowed to participate in the
However, it is made clear that the petit&n.ei.s i would not seek unnecessary adjournment and participate in the suit
proceedings with due disposal of the
matter.
16. The Trial Co he adjudication of the matter preferabl te a certified copy of
this order is presente
17. Stay application ? a
, # IRADHANA), J. Solanki Sunil
2 issues framed by the court
Whether to allow petitioners to participate in pending suit proceedings after a lapse of seven years with service proved
Whether imposition of costs can compensate for delay in instituting application under Order 9 Rule 7
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Shivji Ram Kumawat
Rafeeq Bhanwar Lal Kumawat
IRADHANA
Solanki Sunil
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
