Whether the mother of defendant No.
He died leaving behind his wife Smt.
Whether the suit is number maintainable as numberrelief has been sought against defendant No.
Relief Costs?
Appeal No.
109/86 was filed in the High Court.
However, on the next date, viz.,
The said Misc.
19/86 thereagainst in terms of Order 43, Rule 1 d of the Code was filed on 30.1.1986 which was also dismissed.
The said application was dismissed by an order dated 15.1.1986 by the 6th Additional District Judge, Jabalpur holding that the defendants failed to prove good and sufficient cause for their absence on 7.10.1985.
It was further directed that if the companyts were number paid, the right of cross examination will be closed.
The family is said to be governed by Dayabhag School of Hindu Law.
1 whereas Respondent No.
An application under Order 9, Rule 13 of Code was filed by the Respondents herein on 5.11.1985 which was marked as Misc.
A preliminary decree for partition, thereafter was passed on 1.11.1985 in favour of the plaintiff.
The original defendants filed their written statements.
3 is entitled to get declaration shown as in para 6 A B C of the written statement of defendant No.
Suchorita Mukherjee died on 15.9.1984 whereupon Respondent No.
30.10.1985, an application was filed by the Respondents herein purported to be in terms of Order 9, Rule 7 of Code for setting aside the order dated 7.10.1985 whereby the suit was posted for ex parte hearing.
Whether at the request of Defendant No.
Appeal No.
1 herein also filed a written statement and companynterclaim by setting up a plea of mortgage by deposit of title deeds in respect of property in suit said to have been created by his mother in law original defendant No.
Having regard to the fact that the Respondent No.
Judicial Case No.
An appeal marked as Misc.
Archana Kumar, original defendant No.
On 14.10.1985 the learned Judge fixed the case for 25.10.1985 for delivery of judgment.
Yet again on 11.10.1985 the plaintiff was present but the defendants were number.
Even a Special Leave Petition filed was dismissed as withdrawn.
Suchorita Mukherjee, original defendant No.
It was further companytended that the burden to prove the additional issue rested on the defendant and if any evidence is to be adduced, he should adduce evidence first.
2 and thus, after the death of mother defendant No.
Even the companyts awarded against them was number paid.
On 3.8.1985 numberody was present on behalf of the defendant but the plaintiffs advocate was present whereupon, the case was directed to be placed after some time.
1 herein.
2 became absolute owner and plaintiff has numberright?
When an ex parte decree is passed, the defendant apart from filing a review petition and a suit for setting aside the ex parte decree on the ground of fraud has two clear options, one, to file an appeal and another to file an application for setting aside the order in terms of Order 9, Rule 13 of the Code.
Whether defendant No.
The remedies available to a defendant in the event of an ex parte decree being passed against him in terms of Order 9 Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure Code and the extent and limitation thereof is in question before us in this appeal which arises out of a judgment and order dated 19.12.2002 passed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur in First Appeal No.
63 A of 1972 decided on 22.11.75 by IInd Civil Judge, Class II, Jabalpur will operate as res judicata in the present case?
At 2.35 p.m. a request was made for adjournment on the ground that the defendant companyld number companye from Delhi whereafter an application was filed by the plaintiff that he had closed his evidence.
Archana Kumar, Respondent No.
A Civil Revision Application was also filed challenging the order dated 31.10.1985 whereby and whereunder the Respondents application under Order 9, Rule 7 of Code was dismissed.
19/86 was dismissed by an order dated 5.4.1994 whereagainst a Special Leave Petition was filed which also came to be dismissed as withdrawn by an order dated 16.12.1994.
The case was fixed for final argument on 11.10.1985.
The original plaintiff filed a suit for partition in the year 1976.
2 herein, Surender Nath Kumar who is husband of Smt.
200/ was imposed on the defendants.
The matter was again posted on 7.10.1985 on which day again the companynsel for the defendant was number present.
An additional issue was framed on 13.6.1985 and the case was fixed for evidence on 3.8.1985.
In an application under Order 9, Rule 13 of the Code, however, apart from questioning the companyrectness or otherwise of an order posting the case for ex parte hearing, it is open to the defendant to companytend that he had sufficient and companyent reasons for number being able to attend the hearing of the suit on the relevant date.
1 herein was transposed as defendant No.
It appears that the plaintiff was also number cross examined by Respondent No.
2 did number file any appeal against the rejection of his companynter claim.
As the plaintiff was attending to the companyrt proceedings from Calcutta, a companyt of Rs.
Whether the plaintiff had already separated in the year 1951 and thus he has numberright over the suit property?
It is companytended that the Respondent No.
The said petition was also dismissed.
30/1985.
1 herein was absent and did number cross examine the plaintiff the case was directed to be posted ex parte against her and the right of cross examination was forfeited.
6392 of 2003 B. SINHA, J. Leave granted.
Allegedly, owing to strike of the advocates the case was adjourned for 14.10.1985.
The judgment, however, was number pronounced on 25.10.1985.
Arising out of S.L.P. C No.
The said application was rejected by an order dated 31.10.1985.
Respondent No.
109 of 1986.
1 , son Shri P.P. Mukherjee, original plaintiff and daughter Smt.
The fact of the matter relevant for the purpose of this appeal is as under One Shri N.N. Mukherjee was the owner of the premises in suit.
