Today CPC advt Suriyanarayanan

ORDER I RULE 9 –
2009(7) SCJ 124
MALAY KUMAR GANGULY VS. DR. SUKUMAR MUKHERJEE AND OTHERS
Proceedings initiated for medical negligence – withdrawal of cases against some of them not of much significance – negligence can be attributed when existing facilities not availed – medical negligence is not available for not rendering a facility which was not available – appeal cannot be dismissed for withdrawal against some of them after issuance of notice.
ORDER VII RULE 11, ORDER XII RULE 6 –
2009(7) SCJ 299
NARINDER KUMAR MALIK VS. SURINDER KUMAR MALIK
Suit for partition over a peace land allotted to partnership firm – application under Order VII Rule 11 dismissed – application for interim decree allowed granting preliminary decree for partition – appeal filed allowed with directions – amount directed to be deposited, not deposited in time – High Court concluded time was extendable – respondent did not honour his commitment – Appeals allowed.
ORDER VII RULE 11 –
2009(7) SCJ 92
P.K. PALANISAMY VS. N. ARUMUGAM AND ANOTHER
Suit for recovery of amounts filed with deficit court fees – court fee paid with delay – exparte decree passed for non-appearance of defendant – setting aside with delay allowed – application filed to reject the suit for filing the suit with deficit court fee – order extending time to deposit the deficit court fee not challenged – court fee is a matter between the state and the suitor – High Court erred in allowing revision.
ORDER IX RULE 13 –
2009(7) SCJ 9
JOHN IMPEX PRIVATE LTD., ANOTHER VS. ATHUL KAPUR AND OTHERS
Suit for eviction of tenant decreed exparte despite service of notice on defendant – no sufficient or cogent reason assigned for non appearance.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Call Now ButtonCALL ME