REGENT COMPUTRONICS PVT. LTD.

CHANDRANA BROS. Appellant

V/S

JALAJALAXMI S.BHAT, BANGALORE Respondents

Referred Judgements :-

AMIR HASSAN KHAN V. SHEO BAKSH SINGH [REFERRED TO]
PAPIAH SETTY V. PADMANABHA SETTY [REFERRED TO]
JAGANNATH RAMCHANDRA DATAR V. DATTARAYA [REFERRED TO]
KESHARDEO CHAMRIA VS. RADHA KISSEN CHAMRIA [REFERRED TO]
SANTOSH KUMAR VS. BHAI MOOL SINGH [REFERRED TO]
MANINDRA LAND AND BUILDING CORPORATION LTD VS. BHUTNATH BANERJEE [REFERRED TO]
VORA ABBASBHAI ALIMAHOMED VS. HAJI GULAMNABI HAJI SAFIBHAI [REFERRED TO]
D S CHELLAMMAL ANNI VS. MASANAN SAMBAN [REFERRED TO]
JASHWAIITRAI MALUKCHAND VS. ANANDILAL BAPALAL [REFERRED TO]
MILKHIRAM INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED VS. CHAMANLAL BROS [REFERRED TO]
PANDURANG DHONDI CHOUGULE VS. MARUTI HARI JADHAV [REFERRED TO]
RATILAL BALABHAI NAZAR VS. RANCHHODBHAI SHANKARBHAI PATEL [REFERRED TO]
SUIJA VS. HARDEVA [REFERRED TO]
D L F HOUSING AND CONSTRUCTION COMPANY P LIMITED NEW DELHI VS. SARUP SINGH [REFERRED TO]
MANAGING DIRECTOR MIG HINDUSTAN AERONAUTICS LIMITED BALA NAGAR VS. AJIT PRASAD TARWAY [REFERRED TO]
M L SETHI VS. R P KAPUR [REFERRED TO]
MECHELEC ENGINEERS AND MANUFACTURERS VS. BASIC EQUIPMENT CORPORATION [REFERRED TO]
SHER SINGH VS. JOINT DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION [REFERRED TO]
KENZIES VS. STATE OF MYSORE [REFERRED TO]
GOVINDANAIK G KALAGHATIGI VS. WEST PATENT PRESS CO LTD [REFERRED TO]
J HIRALAL VS. GULABCHAND [REFERRED TO]
V R RAJAGOPALIAH SETTY VS. N RADHAKRISHNA [REFERRED TO]
MAHABOOBSAB VS. RAMACHANDRAPPA NARAYANAPPA KAMPLI [REFERRED TO]
N S VENKATAGIRI AYYANGAR VS. HINDU RELIGIOUS ENDOWMENTS BOARD, MADRAS [REFERRED TO]
JOY CHAND LAL BABU VS. KAMALAKSHA CHAUDHURY [REFERRED TO]
NARAYAN SONAGI SAGNE VS. SHESHRAO VITHOBA [REFERRED TO]
BALAKRISHNA UDAYAR VS. VASUDEVA AIYAR [REFERRED TO]

JUDGEMENT

(1.) C. R. P. No. 3867 of 1983 has been filed by defendants 1, 3 and 4 in O.S.No. 129 of 1983 on the file of the Principal Civil Judge, Mangalore. They have challenged the order dated 25-10-1983 passed on I. A. S. Nos. IV and V. C. R. P. No. 598 of 1984 has been filed by defendant 2 in the said suit challenging the very order. The Principal Civil Judge has, by the impugned order, granted leave to the defendants to defend the suit but on terms, namely, the defendants furnishing security for due performance of the decree that may be passed if the plaintiff succeeds in the suit. He has further directed the defendants to file their written statement within a period of one month from the date of the order.

(2.) C. R. P. No. 3867 of 1983 has been admitted and the impugned order has been stayed. C.R.P. No. 598 of 1984 has come up for admission. Respondent-1 plaintiff has filed IA. No. II in C.R.P. No. 3867 of 1983 requesting the Court to vacate the interim order of stay. The Counsel appearing on both sides in C.R.P. No. 3867 of 1983 submitted that the C.R.P. be heard and disposed of on merits. The Counsel for the petitioner in C.R.P. No. 598 of 1984 submitted, in my opinion rightly, that the fate of this petition depends on the result of C.R.P. No. 3867 of 1983.

(3.) Respondent-1-plaintiff filed the said suit for recovery of certain amounts. The suit was filed under O.37 Civil PC as a summary suit. The procedure duly prescribed in O.37 R.3, CPC, was indisputably complied with by the trial Court. The defendants entered appearance in accordance with O.37 R.3(3) Civil PC. The plaintiff took steps as per the provisions in sub-r.(4) of R.3 of O.37, C.P.C. Summons for judgment in Form No. 4A in Appendix B was duly served. The defendants took necessary steps under sub-r.(5) of the said provision and thereupon the matter was heard in the course of which elaborate arguments were advanced and the learned Civil Judge passed the impugned order.

Click here to view full judgment.

CHANDRANA BROS Vs. JALAJALAXMI S BHAT BANGALORE

Referred Judgements :-

JUDGEMENT

QUick Links

Get in Touch

Email

Contact Numbers

Address