Ran Singh and ors. Vs. Girdhari

Ran Singh and ors. vs Girdhari

Disposition Petition dismissed Court Punjab and Haryana Decided Apr 21, 2004

~3 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/613802

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/613802
Court: Punjab and Haryana High Court
Judge: N.K. Sud, J.
Decided On: Apr 21, 2004
Case Number: Civil Revision No. 1587 of 1983
Subject: Civil
Disposition: Petition dismissed

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

- Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002], 110 & 104 & Letters Patent, 1865, Clause 10: [Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Letters Patent Appeal Order of Single Judge of High Court passed while deciding matters filed under Order 43, Rule1 of C.P.C., - Held, After introduction of Section ...

Key legal issue: Civil
Outcome / disposition: Petition dismissed
Acts & sections: Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) , 1908 - Order 9, Rules 2 and 4

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Ran Singh and ors.

Advocate H.S. Giani, Adv.

Respondent

Girdhari

Legal References

Acts: Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) , 1908 - Order 9, Rules 2 and 4
Reported In: (2004)137PLR463

Excerpt

.....a writ appeal will lie. but, no writ appeal will lie against a judgment/order/decree passed by a single judge in exercising powers of superintendence under article 227 of the constitution. - 1. this civil revision is directed against the order passed by the sub judge, ist class, gurgaon, dated 14.3.1983 dismissing the application of the petitioners for setting aside order dated 31.1.1983. 2. the suit of the petitioner was dismissed on 31.1.1983 under order 9 rule 2 code of civil procedure in consequence of the petitioner's failure to file the summons required for service of the defendant for various dates fixed for hearing. ' 3. the trial court dismissed this application on the ground that no sufficient cause had been shown by the petitioner for failure to file the summons and that there was nothing on record worth the name to show that there was a bonafide mistake on the part of the applicant in not filing the summons. in this factual background if the application is considered, it is clear that there is no explanation whatsoever for not filing the summons and process fee for 31.1.1983, an order passed under order 9 rule 2 cpc can only be set aside if the applicant is able to satisfy the court that there was sufficient cause for failure as referred to in rule 2 of order 9 cpc......dates. finally on 14.12.1982 following order was passed.;-'deft be summoned on filing of pf and summons within seven days for 31.1.1983'.5. counsel for the petitioners has not been able to dispute that no process fee or summons were filed by the petitioner in compliance with the above mentioned order. on the other hand, the application filed by the petitioner dated 31-1-1983, which was already been reproduced in full above shows that the petitioner made a wrong claim before the trial court that he had been submitting summons for service 'on each and every date of hearing.' it is thus clear that he was claiming setting aside of the order on the ground that he had submitted summons in compliance with the order dated 14.12.1982 also. this claim is totally false as per the admitted position. in this factual background if the application is considered, it is clear that there is no explanation whatsoever for not filing the summons and process fee for 31.1.1983, an order passed under order 9 rule 2 cpc can only be set aside if the applicant is able to satisfy the court that there was sufficient cause for failure as referred to in rule 2 of order 9 cpc. as has already been observed, there was no such explanation whatsoever tendered before the trial court. thus in my view, no case for setting aside of the order dated 31.1.1983 has been made out.the civil revision being devoid of any merit is dismissed. no costs.

Full Judgment

ORDER

N.K. Sud, J.

1. This civil revision is directed against the order passed by the Sub Judge, Ist Class, Gurgaon, dated 14.3.1983 dismissing the application of the petitioners for setting aside order dated 31.1.1983.

2. The suit of the petitioner was dismissed on 31.1.1983 under Order 9 Rule 2 Code of Civil Procedure in consequence of the petitioner's failure to file the summons required for service of the defendant for various dates fixed for hearing. The petitioner filed application dated 31.1.1983 for setting aside the impugned order stating as under;

'1. That the above mentioned case is pending in this Hon'ble Court since 20.4.1981 and which was fixed for today i.e. 3.1.1983.

2. That the plaintiff/applicant have been submitting the summons for service of the defendant on each and every date of hearing in this Hon'ble Court, but the service of the defendant could not make on the summons.

3. That in the case file the entries of the summons has not been made for the last four/five hearings, so the case has been dismissed on this basis alone. This is bonafide mistake.

It is, therefore, requested that the above case may kindly be heard and the order passed by your honour be set aside.'

3. The trial Court dismissed this application on the ground that no sufficient cause had been shown by the petitioner for failure to file the summons and that there was nothing on record worth the name to show that there was a bonafide mistake on the part of the applicant in not filing the summons.

4. I have heard the counsel for the petitioner and also perused the records of the case. A perusal of the zimini order shows that the matter was taken up for the first time on 3.6.1981 and summons were ordered to be issued to respondent for various dates. Finally on 14.12.1982 following order was passed.;-

'deft be summoned on filing of PF and summons within seven days for 31.1.1983'.

5. Counsel for the petitioners has not been able to dispute that no process fee or summons were filed by the petitioner in compliance with the above mentioned order. On the other hand, the application filed by the petitioner dated 31-1-1983, which was already been reproduced in full above shows that the petitioner made a wrong claim before the trial Court that he had been submitting summons for service 'on each and every date of hearing.' It is thus clear that he was claiming setting aside of the order on the ground that he had submitted summons in compliance with the order dated 14.12.1982 also. This claim is totally false as per the admitted position. In this factual background if the application is considered, it is clear that there is no explanation whatsoever for not filing the summons and process fee for 31.1.1983, An order passed under Order 9 Rule 2 CPC can only be set aside if the applicant is able to satisfy the Court that there was sufficient cause for failure as referred to in Rule 2 of Order 9 CPC. As has already been observed, there was no such explanation whatsoever tendered before the trial Court. Thus in my view, no case for setting aside of the order dated 31.1.1983 has been made out.

The Civil revision being devoid of any merit is dismissed. No costs.

Same Court & Year Punjab and Haryana · 2004 Same Parties Ran Singh and ors. vs Girdhari Same Subject Civil Same Judge N.K. Sud, J. Acts & Sections Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) , 1908 - Order 9, Rules 2 and 4

Civil