https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=272444 A corporation seeking to prosecute an application to set aside an ex parte decree must establish proper authority for the officer conducting the litigation; mere power to sign and verify pleadings under Order XXIX Rule 1 CPC is not enough. The courts below found the District Manager was not shown to be competent, and that the application was also time-barred because the alleged date of knowledge of the decree was not proved by cogent evidence. In revision, interference under Section 115 CPC was unwarranted because no jurisdictional error, material irregularity, failure of justice, or irreparable injury was demonstrated, and the revision was dismissed. en-us Fri, 10 Oct 1980 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 03 May 2018 17:37:52 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=272444 A corporation seeking to prosecute an application to set aside an ex parte decree must establish proper authority for the officer conducting the litigation; mere power to sign and verify pleadings under Order XXIX Rule 1 CPC is not enough. The courts below found the District Manager was not shown to be competent, and that the application was also time-barred because the alleged date of knowledge of the decree was not proved by cogent evidence. In revision, interference under Section 115 CPC was unwarranted because no jurisdictional error, material irregularity, failure of justice, or irreparable injury was demonstrated, and the revision was dismissed. Case-Laws Indian Laws Fri, 10 Oct 1980 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=272444