Professional Documents
Culture Documents
3/14
AttarSinghvsSanjeev
11.05.2015
Present:
None.
ThisorderdecidestheapplicationofthedefendantunderOrder
9Rule13CPCprayingthattheexpartejudgmentdated07.03.2012beset
asideasthedefendantdidnotreceivethesummonsofthesuitfromthecourt.
Further,thatthedefendantgainedknowledgeofthesuitonlyinJanuary2014
when he received bailable warrants from this court during the execution
proceedingsuponthejudgmentdated07.03.2012.Thedefendantpurportedly
came to know about the present proceedings only on 27.04.2014 and his
counselsubsequentlyexaminedthefileandlearntaboutthejudgmentdated
07.03.2012.
Theapplicationwasopposedbytheplaintiffonthesubmission
that the defendant had complete knowledge of the proceedings and even
appearedon02.02.2012. Further,thattheapplicationwastimebarredasit
wasfiledonlyon20.02.2014i.ebeyondthepermissibleperiodof30days.
Thecourthasconsideredthegroundsurgedintheapplication.
Asperarticle123oftheScheduletotheLimitationAct,1963,
anapplicationunderOrder9Rule13CPCmaybemovedwithin30daysof
thedateofthedecreeorwherethesummonswerenotdulyserved,within30
daysfromthedatewhentheapplicanthadknowledgeofthedecree.
Itisapparentfromtherecordofthetrialthatvideorderdated
12.01.2012summonsweredirectedtobeservedbywayofaffixationandupon
beingsoexecuted,thestatementoftheprocessserverwasalsorecordedby
theLd.Predecessorofthiscourt.Itwasthusheldvideorderdated02.02.2012
that the defendant had been duly served with the summons by way of
affixation. Thesuitwasconsequentlydirectedtobeheardexpartequathe
defendant.
Thereisnomaterialadducedbythe defendantinthepresent
applicationtocontrovertthefindingregardingvalidservicereachedbythe
Ld. Predecessor vide order dated 02.02.2012. Summons were apparently
servedbywayofaffixationandthereportuponthesummonswasverifiedby
thestatementoftheprocessserverwhoevenfiledaphotographonrecord.
Hence,theperiodoflimitationforfilinganapplicationforsettingasidethe
expartedecreewouldcommencefromthedateofthedecreei.e07.03.2012.
Thepresentapplication,filedon20.02.2014,ismanifestlybeyondtheperiod
oflimitationandnotmaintainable.
Besides, the court would also notice that on 02.02.2012, an
applicantbythenameofPawanappearedalongwiththesamecounselwho
hasnowfiledtheapplicationunderOrder9Rule13CPConbehalfofthe
defendant.IfcounselSh.JaiSinghYadavwasrepresentinganapplicantwho
wishedtobeimpleadedintheproceedingswaybackon02.02.2012andhas
nowappearedforthedefendantintheyear2014,itisreasonabletopresume
that the defendant was aware of the date of hearing for 02.02.12 as the
summonshadbeenservedathisaddressbywayofaffixation. Thepresent
applicationunderOrder9Rule13CPCseemsintendedtodefeatexecutionof
thedecreeonfabricatedgrounds.
Thecourtwouldlastlyobservethatevenifthesummonscould
beconsideredtohavebeennotserved,thegroundurgedintheapplicationviz
the defendant becoming aware of the proceedings in January 2014/on
27.01.2014doesnotbringtheapplicationwithinlimitation.Itisseenfromthe
reportuponthebailablewarrantsissuedintheexecutionpetitionNo.27/12
thatthesamewasexecutedon17.01.2014whenthedefendantexecutedbonds
forRs. 10,000/ after appearing before this court. Thus, knowledge of the
decreewouldhavearisenon17.01.2014. Yet,theapplicationwasnotfiled
withinaperiodof30daysandwasonlyfiledon20.02.2014.Therefore,the
applicationistimebarredeveniftheperiodoflimitationcouldbedeemedto
havecommencedonthedateofknowledgeasassertedbythedefendant.
Theapplication,however,failsbecausethecourthasfoundthat
thesummonsofthesuitweredulyservedonthedefendantandtheapplication
filedon20.02.2014iswaybeyondtheperiodoflimitationcommencingfrom
thedateofthedecreeviz07.03.2012.
TheapplicationofthedefendantunderOrder9Rule13CPCis
dismissed.
Letthefilebeconsignedtorecordroom.
(VISHALGOGNE)
SCJ/RC:SOUTHWEST
DWARKA/NEWDELHI
11.05.2015
CSNo.78/14
RamKishorvsMCD
11.05.2015
Present:
Proxycounselfortheplaintiff.
Sh.MaheshChand,PlanningSurveyorfromMCDinperson.
Sh.Parikshit,JLOforDDA.
Sincecounselsareabstainingfromwork,adjournedforfurther
proceedingsfor03.06.2015.
(VISHALGOGNE)
SCJ/RC:SOUTHWEST
DWARKA/NEWDELHI
11.05.2015
CSNo.289/14
MaheshMishravsSharvanKumar&Anr.
11.05.2015
Present:
Plaintiffinperson.
Nonefordefendant.
Sincecounselsareabstainingfromwork,adjournedforfurther
proceedingsfor04.06.2015.
(VISHALGOGNE)
SCJ/RC:SOUTHWEST
DWARKA/NEWDELHI
11.05.2015
CSNo.204/13
SukhbirSingh&OrsvsHariSingh
11.05.2015
Present:
Proxycounselforplaintiff.
Proxycounselfordefendant.
Sincecounselsareabstainingfromwork,adjournedforfurther
proceedingsfor06.07.2015.
(VISHALGOGNE)
SCJ/RC:SOUTHWEST
DWARKA/NEWDELHI
11.05.2015
MCANo.1/15
CharanSinghvsNanda&Anr.
11.05.2015
Present:
Appellantinperson.
Proxycounselforrespondent.
Copy of reply on behalf of respondent No.1 supplied to the
petitioner.
Sincecounselsareabstainingfromwork,adjournedforfurther
proceedingsfor06.07.2015.
(VISHALGOGNE)
SCJ/RC:SOUTHWEST
DWARKA/NEWDELHI
ENo.04/15
LaxmiDevivsKamleshKumar
11.05.2015
Present:
Petitionerinperson.
Respondentinperson.
Copy of application under section 25(3) supplied to the
petitioner.
Since counsels are notappearing due to strike, adjournedfor
furtherproceedingson10.07.2015.
(VISHALGOGNE)
SCJ/RC:SOUTHWEST
DWARKA/NEWDELHI
11.05.2015
MCANo.02/15
VeerSingh&OrsvsRavinderSingh
11.05.2015
Present:
Appellantinperson.
Sincecounselsareabstainingfromwork,adjournedforfurther
proceedingsfor18.05.2015.
(VISHALGOGNE)
SCJ/RC:SOUTHWEST
DWARKA/NEWDELHI
11.05.2015
CSNo.165/14
RekhaRana&OrsvsSatishChandJain
11.05.2015
Present:
Proxycounselfortheplaintiff.
Defendantinperson.
Since counsels are not appearing due to strike, put up for
framingofissueson13.07.2015.
(VISHALGOGNE)
SCJ/RC:SOUTHWEST
DWARKA/NEWDELHI
11.05.2015
CSNo.65/13
VidhataDevivsShakumbhariDevi
11.05.2015
Present:
Proxycounselforplaintiffalongwithplaintiff.
Defendantinperson.
Sincecounselsarenotappearingduetostrike,putupforPEon
13.07.2015.
(VISHALGOGNE)
SCJ/RC:SOUTHWEST
DWARKA/NEWDELHI
11.05.2015
CSNo.38/14
BaijnathPrasadvsDayaDevi@Daya
11.05.2015
Present:
Plaintiffinperson.
Nonefordefendant.
ListofwitnessesalongwithaffidavitofPW1filed.
Sincecounselsarenotappearingduetostrike,putupforPEon
21.07.2015.
(VISHALGOGNE)
SCJ/RC:SOUTHWEST
DWARKA/NEWDELHI
11.05.2015
CSNo.115/14
SBIvsSubiRaj
11.05.2015
Present:
Ms.Poonam,DeputyManagerfromSBI.
Defendantinperson.
Sincecounselsarenotappearingduetostrike,putupforfurther
proceedingson13.07.2015.
(VISHALGOGNE)
SCJ/RC:SOUTHWEST
DWARKA/NEWDELHI
11.05.2015
CSNo.159/13
HukamChandvsPoonam
11.05.2015
Present:
Plaintiffinperson.
Defendantinperson.
Sincecounselsarenotappearingduetostrike,putupforreply
andargumentson13.07.2015.
(VISHALGOGNE)
SCJ/RC:SOUTHWEST
DWARKA/NEWDELHI
11.05.2015
CSNo.109/14
SoniaPahwavsSanjayPahwa
11.05.2015
Present:
Plaintiffinperson.
DefendantNo.1isexparte.
DefendantNo.2inpersonandalsoappearingonbehalfof
defendantNo.3.
Nowitnessispresent.
Sincecounselsarenotappearingduetostrike,putupforPEon
22.07.2015.
(VISHALGOGNE)
SCJ/RC:SOUTHWEST
DWARKA/NEWDELHI
11.05.2015
CSNo.199/13
BablivsSadaRam
11.05.2015
Present:
Noneforplaintiff.
DefendantNo.1inperson.
DefendantNo.4inpersonandalsoappearingonbehalfof
defendantNo.9.
Since counsels are not appearing due to strike, put up for
argumentson13.07.2015.
(VISHALGOGNE)
SCJ/RC:SOUTHWEST
DWARKA/NEWDELHI
11.05.2015
CSNo.179/14
PhoolSinghvsRajeshKumar
11.05.2015
Present:
Proxycounselfortheplaintiff.
Defendantinperson.
Sincecounselsarenotappearingduetostrike,putupforfurther
proceedingson01.06.2015.
(VISHALGOGNE)
SCJ/RC:SOUTHWEST
DWARKA/NEWDELHI
11.05.2015
PremaDevivsDevkiDevi
11.05.2015
Present:
Petitionerinperson.
Noneforrespondent.
Thesummonshavebeenservedpersonallyontherespondent.
Beawaited.
Present:
SCJ/RC:SOUTHWEST
Petitionerinperson.
Noneforrespondent.
Beawaited.
Present:
Petitionerinperson.
SCJ/RC:SOUTHWEST
Noneforrespondent.
Sincenonehasappearedforrespondentonrepeatedcallssince
morning, the petition is directed to be heard exparte qua the
respondent.
Putupforexparteevidenceon04.06.2015.
(VISHALGOGNE)
SCJ/RC:SOUTHWEST
DWARKA/NEWDELHI
11.05.2015
Ex.No.27/12
AttarSinghvsSanjeev
11.05.2015
Present:
DHinperson.
NoneforJD.
Since counsels are not appearing due to a strike, put up for
appearanceofcounselforDHon20.05.2014.
(VISHALGOGNE)
SCJ/RC:SOUTHWEST
DWARKA/NEWDELHI
11.05.2015