Certo Is this judgment real?
Beta, Supreme Court only. We check Supreme Court of India judgments only for now: a High Court citation reads "Not in our corpus", which never means it does not exist.

Supreme Court of India

SUSHILA NARAHARI AND ORS. versus NANDA KUMAR AND ANR.

Decided
8 July 1996
Judges listed
K. RAMASWAMY (as the open data lists them; this may not name the whole bench)
Disposal
Appeal(s) allowed

Citations

Official
[1996] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 208 · 1996 INSC 703
Also cited as
  • (1996) 5 SCC 529 (6 citing judgments)

Learned from how other judgments cite this one, in their text or in the official Supreme Court Reports' lists of cases they refer to: each is cited this way by at least two judgments, and at least twice as often as any other citation to this judgment in that report. We hold no commercial reporter's text, only these citation strings.

Cited by

We found no other Supreme Court judgment we hold that cites this one.

Counted only in the Supreme Court judgments we hold whose text we could read, not in High Court judgments. We match each citation to a judgment automatically, so a citation we cannot match is not counted. "Cited" says only that a judgment refers to this one, not whether it followed, distinguished or overruled it.

The Court's text

Paragraphs from our copy of the Supreme Court Reports print, with the Court's own paragraph numbers, the printed page and, where printed, the margin letter. The Court did not number this judgment's paragraphs, so they are listed by page. Link to paragraph N with #para-N.

Leave granted. We have heard learned counsel on both sides.

p. 208, margin F

This appeal by special leave arises against the order of the learned single Judge of the High Court made on February 14, 1994 in CRP No. 306/94. The suit for specific performance of agreement dated January 29, 1986 for the sale of 4840 sq. ft. of land in Madras city, laid by the respondent, was decreed ex-parte. The appellants had filed an application to set aside the ex-parte decree which was dismissed by the trial Court and confirmed by the High Court in revision. Thus, this appeal by special leave.

p. 208, margin F

A reading of the facts leaves us with no doubt that the advocate has derelicted his duty to inform the client by registered post if there was any non-cooperation on behalf of the appellants. Consequently, when the suit had come up for trial, he has withdrawn his vakalatnama without notice to the appellants. The trial Court set the appellants ex pmte and decreed the suit for specific performance. The application for condonation of delay of 40 days was filed. The Court refused to condone the delay. In view of the above, we find that she is_ well justified in filing the application with the delay. The delay is accordingly condoned. The ex-pwte decree is set aside. The trial Court is di_rected to give opportunity to the appellants to crossexamine the witness examined by the respondent of the suit and also adduce evidence on her behalf. The trial Court is further directed to dispose of the matter as expeditiously as possible, preferably within one year from the date of receipt of the copy of the order The appeal is allowed. No costs. T.N.A. Appeal allowed.

pp. 208–209, margin H