High Court allowed civil revision allowing one party to file a written statement in a suit where they were previouslyexparte. Trial court orders were set aside.
Trial court orders set aside. Revisionist granted two weeks time to pay costs and file written statement in original suit.
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 UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE ALOK KUMAR VERMA
9TH NOVEMBER, 2021
CIVIL REVISION No.37 of 2021
Between:
Surendar Singh. …Revisionist
and
Vijendar Singh and another. …Respondents
Counsel for the Revisionist : Mr. Anshu Kumar.
Counsel for the Respondents: Mr. Rajveer Singh.
Hon’ble Alok Kumar Verma,J.
This civil revision has been filed against the order dated 12.03.2021, passed by the learned Judge, Small Cause Court/First Additional District Judge, Roorkee, District Haridwar in S.C.C. Suit No.30 of 2018, “Vijendar Singh and another vs. Surendar Singh and another”, whereby the learned trial court has dismissed the recall application (paper No.30C2) of the revisionist/defendant No.1, filed under Order 9 Rule 7 of C.P.C.
2
3
will appear before the learned trial court on 29.11.2021 and file his written statement.
ALOK KUMAR VERMA, J.
Dt: 09th November, 2021 Neha
2 issues framed by the court
Whether recall application for trial in default should be allowed.
Whether party should be given opportunity to file written statement.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Surendar Singh
Vijendar Singh
Alok Kumar Verma
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
