9911796707
TMI Blog1980 (10) TMI 206X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aside the ex parte decree on February 2, 1974. which was resisted by the respondents. It is not disputed that the Corporation came to know about the ex parte decree on January 3, 1974 when Summons for the execution of the above decree was received by it. 2. The trial Court framed the following three issues to decide the matter: (1) Whether there are sufficient grounds for the setting aside ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... urt was not called upon to assess question of fact or law which may even have been decided wrongly. In this behalf, reference is made to D. L. F. Housing and Construction Co. (P) Ltd. v. Sarup Singh, AIR 1971 SC 2324. Indeed, Section 115, Code of Civil Procedure, as amended, provides that the High Court shall not vary or reverse any order made in course of the suit or other made in course of the s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... provisions of Order XXIX, Rule 1, Code of Civil Procedure, which prescribe that I suits by or against a corporation any pleading may be signed and verified on behalf of the corporation by the secretary or by any director or other principal officer of the corporation who is able to depose to the facts of the case. This provision nowhere empowers such an officer to conduct the case on behalf of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n also and the relevant issues No. 3 has been correctly decided against it by the Courts below. 7. There being no material irregularity, nor an allegation about the lacks of jurisdiction vesting in the Courts below, the present Revision Petition is without merit and is consequently dismissed. In the circumstances of the case, however, there will be no order as to costs. 8. Revision dismissed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
