KANAHYA LAL PUNJ CHARITABLE TRUST Vs. DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX EXEMPTION NEW DELHI
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Click here to view full judgement.
SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, J. -
(1.) The matter has been passed over once and called for the second time. Neither
the counsel for defendant no.1 nor defendant no.1 is present in Court.
(2.) On 22.2.2007 a direction was issued for the defendants to remain present in
Court for recording of statement under Order 10 Rule 2 CPC and the matter was
listed on 3.4.2007. On 3.4.2007 again learned counsel for defendant no.1 stated
that defendant no.1 was out of country and would be back only by 15.5.2007. It
was on these circumstances the matter was adjourned for today for recording
statement of defendant no.1 under Order 10 Rule 2 CPC. As noticed above, the
said defendant is not present in Court for examination.
(3.) In order to appreciate the consequences of the failure of defendant no.1 to
appear for recording of statement under Order 10 Rule 2 CPC, it is necessary to
reproduce the relevant provision, which is as under:
"O.X R.4 " Consequence of refusal or inability of pleader to answer-- (1) Where
the pleader of any party who appears by a pleader or any such person
accompanying a pleader as is referred to in rule 2, refuses or is unable to
answer any material question relating to the suit which the Court is of opinion
that the party whom he represents ought to answer, and is likely to be able to
answer if interrogated in person, the court [may postpone the hearing of the
suit to a day not later than seven days from the date of first hearing] and
direct that such party shall appear in person on such day.
(2) If such party fails without lawful excuse to appear in person on the day so
appointed, the Court may pronounce judgment against him, or make such order in
relation to the suit as it thinks fit.";
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.