<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>1991 (2) TMI 417 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=199808</link>
    <description>Sufficient cause for condoning delay in an application to set aside an ex parte decree was construed liberally where the applicant had earlier actively defended the suit and acted promptly after learning of the decree, so the party was not made to suffer solely for counsel&#039;s negligence. The decree was also treated as indivisible in substance because the liabilities of the different defendants were interlinked on the same factual and legal determination. On that purposive reading of Order 9 Rule 13 CPC, the ex parte decree could be set aside in its entirety, the plea of res judicata was rejected, and the matter was directed to proceed afresh.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 28 Feb 1991 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 13 Mar 2018 15:35:43 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=512432" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1991 (2) TMI 417 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=199808</link>
      <description>Sufficient cause for condoning delay in an application to set aside an ex parte decree was construed liberally where the applicant had earlier actively defended the suit and acted promptly after learning of the decree, so the party was not made to suffer solely for counsel&#039;s negligence. The decree was also treated as indivisible in substance because the liabilities of the different defendants were interlinked on the same factual and legal determination. On that purposive reading of Order 9 Rule 13 CPC, the ex parte decree could be set aside in its entirety, the plea of res judicata was rejected, and the matter was directed to proceed afresh.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 28 Feb 1991 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=199808</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>