Ex-parte judgement
harjinder
(Querist) 07 September 2017
This query is : Open
Fighting a property case for last 15years.In 2015 Ex-parte judgement was pronounced in our favour. Section 5 was filed by the other party in 2017.The case was transfered to District Judge.All the relevant documents were produced. The other party counsellor is not ready to face the argument and unnecessary prolonging the case. Court is also granting him time and dates of his choice. Kindly advice how can I process my case sooner. I am facing a lot of problems since I have a transferable job.
Ms.Usha Kapoor
(Expert) 08 September 2017
you can file IA FOR A speedy DISPOSAL OR EARLY HEARING OF YOUR CASE AS THE OPPOSITE PARTY IS USING DILATORY TACTICS IN PROLONGING THE CASE.According TO CPC ANY CASE IN TRIAL COURT SHOULD BE DISPOSED OF MAXIMUM WITHIN 3 YEARS. Already YOU GOT EX PARTY ORDERS IN YOUR FAVOR AGAINST THE defendant ON ACCOUNT OF THEIR NONAPPEARANCE DURING THE ENTIRE COURSE OF TRIAL WHICH SMACKS OF LACK OF STRONG DEFENCE IN THEIR FAVOR.
Adv. Yogen Kakade
(Expert) 08 September 2017
I agree with Ushaji.. nothing more to add
Isaac Gabriel
(Expert) 08 September 2017
SPETITIONER:
MST. BHABIA DEVI
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
PERMANAND PD. YADAV
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 24/02/1997
BENCH:
K. RAMASWAMY, G.T. NANAVATI
ACT:
HEADNOTE:
JUDGMENT:
O R D E R
This special leave petition arises from the order of the High Court of Patna, made in Appeal from the Original Order No.406/86 on July 24, 1996.
The respondent had filed a suit for specific performance on the foot of an agreement alleged to have been executed by the petitioner. The petitioner was served notice but since she did not contest the suit, ex-parte decree was granted. Subsequently,the petitioner filed an application under Order IX, Rule 13, C.P.C. seeking setting aside of the ex-parte decree. Therein, her specific case was that she was not residing at Garhia Village and, therefore, the notice could not be deemed to have been served on her. The endorsement is not correct. The question was gone into by the courts below after recording the evidence of one Laxuman Yadav, Mahendra Yadav and process server. It is their case that on January 15, 1985 when the summons were handed over
to Mst. Bhabia Devi and when she was acquainted with the facts, she refused to sign or put thumb impression on the notice. When the process server had gone to serve it on her personally on April 2, 1984 to the village and also on April 9, 1984 when the registered card acknowledgement was sent, she refused to acknowledge it. Under those circumstance, the courts below have concluded and the High Court has recorded
as under:
"Apart from the aforementioned two modes for service of notice, as have already noticed, there was yet another mode by way of Gazette publication. An attempt has been made on behalf of the appellant to say that she being illiterate lady could not learn about the Gazette publication."
This is a finding of fact on appreciation of the evidence. Thereby, it is clear that petitioner had refused to accept the notice. Consequently, she was rightly set ex-
parte. The learned counsel for the petitioner seeks to contest the case on merits. We cannot go into the merits since the appeal was not subject matter in any of the
appeals filed either under Section 96 or Section 100, C.P.C.
The special leave petition is dismissed.
ee whether the enclosed judgement will work out.
