REGENT COMPUTRONICS PVT. LTD.

RAMARAO MAROTIRAO Appellant

V/S

SHANTIBAI MADHORAO Respondents

Referred Judgements :-

WATT V. THOMAS [REFERRED TO]
RAMRAO V. SHANTIBAI [REFERRED TO]
W.C.MACDONALD V. FRED LATIMER [REFERRED TO]
SARJU PERSHAD RAMDEO SAHU VS. JWALESHWARI PRATAP NARAIN SINGH [REFERRED TO]
MANINDRA LAND AND BUILDING CORPORATION LTD VS. BHUTNATH BANERJEE [REFERRED TO]
VORA ABBASBHAI ALIMAHOMED VS. HAJI GULAMNABI HAJI SAFIBHAI [REFERRED TO]
RAMNIKIAL PITAMBARDAS MEHTA VS. INDRADAMAN AMRATLAL SHETH [REFERRED TO]
PANDURANG DHONDI CHOUGULE VS. MARUTI HARI JADHAV [REFERRED TO]
RATILAL BALABHAI NAZAR VS. RANCHHODBHAI SHANKARBHAI PATEL [REFERRED TO]
D L F HOUSING AND CONSTRUCTION COMPANY P LIMITED NEW DELHI VS. SARUP SINGH [REFERRED TO]
T D GOPALAN VS. COMMISSIONER OF HINDU RELIGIOUS AND CHARITABLE ENDOWMENTS MADRAS [REFERRED TO]
M L SETHI VS. R P KAPUR [REFERRED TO]
BAI HIRAGAURI VS. ABDUL KADAR MAMADJI [REFERRED TO]
SHAIK JAFFAR SHAIK MAHMOOD VS. MOHAMMAD PASHA HAKKANI SAHEB [REFERRED TO]
TULSIRAM VS. SHYAMLAL GANPATLAL [REFERRED TO]
KELUNI DEI VS. KANHEI SAHU [REFERRED TO]
SARJUG RAI VS. UNION OF INDIAMAHESHWARI DEVI [REFERRED TO]
GANTHAKORU MANGAMMA VS. DULLA PAIDAYYA [REFERRED TO]
SARA VESRASWAMI ALIAS SARA VEERRAJU VS. TALLURI NARAYYA (DECEASED) [REFERRED TO]

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN the suit instituted by the revision-petitioners, April 2, 1968, was fixed for evidence of both the parties. On that date, the defendants' counsel applied for adjournment on the ground that Shantibai and Ganpatrao were not able to attend the Court because of illness. Seven witnesses for the plaintiffs were present. The trial Court rejected the application for adjournment and at that stage counsel for the defendants reported no instructions and retired. The trial Court forthwith recorded evidence of the plaintiffs' witnesses including the plaintiff himself and closed the case. On April 6, 1968, the trial Court delivered its judgment and passed a decree in favour of the plaintiffs against the defendants.

(2.) THE defendants made an application under Order 9, Rule 13, Civil procedure Code, for setting aside the ex parte decree. That was resisted by the plaintiffs. The trial Court rejected it by its order dated March 3, 1969.

(3.) THE defendants' appealed. The learned Additional District Judge, raipur, allowed the appeal and set aside the ex parte decree.

Click here to view full judgment.

RAMARAO MAROTIRAO Vs. SHANTIBAI MADHORAO

Referred Judgements :-

JUDGEMENT

QUick Links

Get in Touch

Email

Contact Numbers

Address