Sandeep Enterprises vs. Yogesh Kumar
Final Order
Court:High Court, Delhi
Judge:Hon'ble Unknown Judge
Case Status:Unknown Status
Order Date:12 Apr 2002
CNR:DLHC010010462002
AI Summary
Get an AI-powered analysis of this court order
Order Issued After Hearing
Purpose:
First Hearing
Listed On:
12 Apr 2002
Order Text
$H.C.D.$ —I(a) Continuation Sheet
š
| Sr.<br>No. | Date | $O$ rders |
|---|---|---|
| $\mathbf{z}$ | ≈ 12-04-2002 "referring # | |
| Present: Mr.F.Paul for the petitioner. | ||
| <b>CM No.893/2002 (Exemption)</b> | ||
| $\star$ | Allowed subject to all just exceptions. | |
| <b>SEC CR 409/2002 & CM 892/2002.</b> | ||
| Héard. | ||
| This civil revision is directed against the $\gg$ | ||
| <pre>* order of the learned Additional District Judge,***</pre> | ||
| $\mathcal{P}$ | Delhi dated 13th March, 2002 by which an application | |
| of the petitioner-defendant seeking leave to defend | ||
| in a summary suit filed by the respondent, plaintiff | ||
| has been vallowed, however, subject to the<br>$\mathbf{u} = \mathbf{v}$ | ||
| petitioner-defendant depositing a<br>$\mathsf{.of}$<br>sum | ||
| $5 \times 1,79,469$ within one month from the date of the | ||
| said order. | ||
| $\frac{d\mathbf{r}}{dt} = \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\frac{\partial \mathbf{r}}{\partial \mathbf{r}}$<br>Learned counsel for the petitioner seeks toward | ||
| $\overline{ }$ | assail the impugned order primarily on the ground | |
| that the suit of the plaintiff, at least<br>the:<br>qua | ||
| eight cheques is barred by limitation. It is also | ||
| contended that the plaintiff-respondent in order to | ||
| ્ર≵∽<br>bring the suit within time, has himself credited a | ||
| ⊸of<br>Rs.4,800/- in the running account of the $Rs.4,800/-$<br>sum. | ||
| defendant which he never paid by him.<br>All these <sup>*</sup> | ||
| questions<br>are still open to for consideration and | ||
| P | after a full dress trial and that is why the<br>answer | |
| trial $\cdot$ court<br>has<br>granted leave to defend to the | ||
| Signature Not Verified | petitioner and has not decreed the suit. Although | |
| Signing Date:30.0<br>Certify that the dis | 7:12:58<br>nd physical file hav | the suit<br>was for recovery of Rs.3,25,000/-, the |
$\hat{ }$
$\mathbf{F}^{\prime}$
$\pmb{\psi},$ $\pmb{\mathbb{S}}$
s
Creat
| Sr.<br>No. | Date | Orders | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| trial court on consideration of the facts and the | |||||
| circumstances and the material on record has | $\mathcal{F} = \mathcal{F} \mathcal{F} \mathcal{F}$ | ||||
| directed "the petitioner-defendant only to deposit a served | |||||
| $sum = 1,79,469$ only which appears to be quite | $\mathcal{L} = \mathcal{L} \mathcal{L}$ | ||||
| just and reasonable. The impugned order cannot be | |||||
| $\sim$ * faltered and does not suffer from any illegality, | |||||
| material irregularity or any other infirmity which | |||||
| $\sim$ calls $\sim$ for $\sim$ any interference by this Court. | |||||
| Dismissed. $\sim$ | |||||
| CM also stands disposed of accordingly. | |||||
| $\mathbf{A}$ $\mathbf{A}$ | April 12, 2002<br>$\cdot$ rds | R. C. Jain. J. | |||
$\overline{\mathcal{A}}$
Original Order Copy
Get a certified copy of this order
Share This Order
Case History of Orders
Similar Case Search