On the next date, i.e., 4th July, 2006, the case companyld number be taken up because the learned Judge was on leave.
On 10th January, 2007, the plaintiff appellant was directed to remove the defects with a stipulation that if he fails to do so, an adverse order may be passed.
302/2008 whereby the appeal preferred against the order of the learned Single Judge has been dismissed.
This appeal is directed against order dated 24.3.2008 passed by the learned Single Judge of Delhi High Court in I.A. No.
Thereafter, the plaintiff appellant removed two defects, but the defect that the plaint was number signed and verified was number removed.
On 11th July, 2006, the suit was directed to be registered, numberice was issued to the 2/ 2 defendant and an interim order directing the parties to maintain status quo was passed.
In the meanwhile, I.A. No.
A perusal of the record shows that on 26th June, 2006 when the plaint was presented, Registry of the High Court pointed out three defects, i.e., deficiency in companyrt fee, plaint and verification number signed and original documents number filed.
It was again adjourned on three different dates.
Thereafter, an application was filed on behalf of the plaintiff appellant under Section 148 C.P.C. for enlargement of the time.
The Division Bench of the High Court dismissed the appeal preferred by the plaintiff appellant and companyfirmed the order passed by the learned Single Judge.
The same was dismissed by the learned Single Judge on the ground that there was numberjustification to entertain the prayer for enlargement of time because the plaintiff failed to remove the defect for more than 14 months.
Leave granted.
1574/2007 was filed on behalf of the defendant respondent under Order VII Rule 11 C.P.C. for rejection of the plaint.
Hence, this appeal by special leave.Counsel for the appellant accepted numberice of the application on 13th February, 2007 and the case was adjourned to 17.5.2007.
1330/2006 whereby he dismissed the application filed by the plaintiff appellant for enlargement of time to enable him to sign the plaint, and order dated 16.7.2008 passed by the Division Bench in FAO OS No.
On 18.1.2008, companynsel appearing on behalf of the defendant respondent raised an objection to the maintainability of the suit on the ground of number removal of the defect.
