https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=198204 An affidavit opposing an interlocutory application was found insufficient because it relied on bare assertions of belief without stating the grounds of belief with sufficient particularity, as required by Order XIX Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The paper-book issue was treated as a matter of procedural discretion: despite delay beyond what could reasonably be explained, further time was granted on terms, including security for costs to protect the respondent and costs of the application to abide the appeal. en-us Tue, 21 Dec 1909 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 25 Jan 2018 10:27:10 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=198204 An affidavit opposing an interlocutory application was found insufficient because it relied on bare assertions of belief without stating the grounds of belief with sufficient particularity, as required by Order XIX Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The paper-book issue was treated as a matter of procedural discretion: despite delay beyond what could reasonably be explained, further time was granted on terms, including security for costs to protect the respondent and costs of the application to abide the appeal. Case-Laws Indian Laws Tue, 21 Dec 1909 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=198204