9911796707
TMI Blog1990 (8) TMI 407X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sing Civil Review No. 3067 of 1989 affirming the order dated 24-7-1989 in Suit No. 256 in the Court of Sub-Judge, 1st Class, Chandigarh, declining leave to the Appellant to defend the suit which was brought under Order 37, Rule 2, Code of Civil Procedure. 2. Leave is declined where the Court is of the opinion that the grant of leave would merely enable the Defendant to prolong the litigation by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... under Order 37 should not be granted where serious conflict as to matter of fact or where any difficulty on issues as to law arises. The Court should not reject the defence of the Defendant, merely, because of its inherent implausibility or its inconsistency. 3. On a consideration of the material in this case -- we have looked into the defence sought to be raised and the criminal complaint earl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lant- Defendant with interest thereon at 9 per cent per annum. 5. The order of the High Court dated 17-10-1989 and of the trial Court dated 24-7-1989 are both set aside and leave to defend granted on the aforesaid terms. 6. We must advert to one another submission made on behalf of the Appellant. It was stated that the Appellant had from time to time during the pendency of the matter at the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
