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

KUMUD LATA DAS versus INDU PRASAD

Decided
19 September 1996
Judges listed
K. RAMASWAMY, FAIZAN UDDIN, G.B. PATTANAIK (as the open data lists them; this may not name the whole bench)
Disposal
Appeal(s) allowed

Citations

Official
[1996] SUPP. 6 S.C.R. 521 · 1996 INSC 1076
Not shown
1 other citation string that other judgments attach to this one, on evidence too thin or too divided to publish.

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.

p. 521, margin F

This appeal by special leave arises from the order made on April 16, 1996 by the Delhi High Court in I.A. No. 8629/95 in Suit No. 3781/90. The suit was for possession of the property from the appellant. The plaintiff is the mother-in-law of the appellant. The appellant and her husband are not able to live amicably in matrimonial tie. The proceedings for divorce are pending._The appellant is in possession of the property and, therefore, the respondent-mother-in-law filed a suit for possession on the basis of her · alleged title. The appellant was set ex parte and the applicatio1i under Order 9, Rule 13 CPC is now pending before the High Court. The application for restoration of the decree has been disposed of with directions to deposit and to continue to deposit mesne profits at the rate of Rs. 2,000 per month from the date of ex-pa1te decree, Hence, this appeal by special leave.

pp. 521–522, margin F

In view of the fact that the parties are closely related and the matter has been disposed of ex-parte, we are of the view that it is not a fit case to impose costs of depositing mesne profits from the date of ex-parte decree and to continue to deposit it as a condition to contest the application to set aside ex-parte decree. Moreover, such onerous condition is not valid, though discretio~ary.

p. 522, margin B

Under these circumstances, we think that the learned Single Judge was not right in imposing the condition of depositing the mesne profits as a condition precedent for execution of the ex-parte decree. The impugned order of the High court is accordingly set aside. There .shall be stay of execution of the ex-parte decree. The matter is remitted to the High Court for fresh consideration of the application for setting aside the decree on merits and in accordance with law.

p. 522, margin C

The appeal is allowed. No costs. G.N. Appeal allowed.

p. 522, margin D