Today Cpc G. Surya Narayanan Mhc Advt: ORDER I RULE 9 – 2009(7) SCJ 124
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.
[12/26, 19:10] Cpc G. Surya Narayanan Mhc Advt: Order 37 rule 3(v)
2009(7) SCJ 41
Fixity Packaging Industries p ltd & others vs Udyen Jain (HUF)
Suit for recovery of amounts on cheque issued by appellant after dishonour- trial court held appellant has no defence even with regard to maintainability as summary suit- Appellant asked to deposit amounts- High court held no error in order of trial judge- Supreme Court didn’t agree with finding of trial judge that leave is granted by mercy- condition imposed should not be onerous when leave is granted- order modified
Order 39 rule 1& 2
2009(7) SCJ 599
Kishorsinh Ratansinh Jadeja vs Maruti Corp. & others
Court has to consider three basic principles for grant of interim injunction- High court did not consider the said principle nor has taken long silence on the part of plaintiff to file the suit – order affecting third party rights in their absence is not sustainable
Order 39 rule 1 & 2
2009(7) SCJ 648
Ece Industries Limited vs S.p. Real Estate Developers p ltd & another
Suit for recovery of possession on the ground of breach of development agreement- petition filed to restrain alienation and changing nature of property- trial court refused injunction finding construction undertaken and completed – held, plaintiff can be compensated or defendant can be directed to pull down structures
Order 41
2009(7) SCJ 827
Inderchand Jain (d) thr Lrs. Vs Motilal (d) thr. Lrs
Appeal is continuation of suit- decision in appeal relates back to date of institution of suit- filing of appeal does not tantamount to automatic stay of execution of decree- court while exercising jurisdiction should not act arbitrarily or beyond contours of law
