GOPI MERCHANT Vs. UJWALA CHAUHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff has made a vehement espousal before this Court, that, with insertion, of, a proviso, vis-a-vis, the provisions, of, Order, 8, Rule 1 of the CPC, provisions whereof stand extracted hereinafter:-

(2.) However, for the reasons to be recorded hereinafter, the afore submission falters, (a) given, the Hon'ble Apex Court, in a case titled as Iridium India Telecom Ltd. vs. Motorola INC., reported in 2005(1) Scale, 42, upon, being seized, vis-a-vis, prevalence of the afore peremptoriness, of, the relevant statutory mandate, vis-a-vis, the statutory contemplations, borne in Sec. 129 of the CPC, provisions whereof stand extracted hereinafter:-

(3.) Be that as it may, the afore declaration of law, has to be deferred, significantly, when the judgment relied, upon, by the learned counsel for the plaintiff, to carry forward his afore submission, apparently, has not alluded, to the decision rendered, by the Hon'ble Apex Court, in, Iridum India Telecom's ase (supra), (i) thereupon, the mandate or the ratio decidendi propounded therein, is limited only, vis-a-vis, factual scenario existing therein, (ii) and, obviously it cannot be concluded, to in any way, rather undermine the legal efficacy, of, the judgment pronounced by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Iridum India Telecom's case (supra). Conspicuously, when there is palpable analogity, vis-a-vis, the conundrum prevailing therein, and, hereat. Preeminently, also when the relevant High Court Rules, and, Orders framed in exercise of statutory jurisdiction vested, upon, it, and, rather ensuing, from, the, mandate cast under Sec. 129, of the CPC, make clear regulatory contemplation(s), vis-a-vis, the regulating mechanism, available, for adoption, for, the trial of the suit, on, the original civil side, as, the instant civil suit, is, being tried, on, the original side, (iii) thereupon, the mandate thereof is rather to be revered.