KANAHYA LAL PUNJ CHARITABLE TRUST Vs. DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX EXEMPTION NEW DELHI
LAWS(DLH)-2007-5-94
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Decided on May 14,2007

MANOHAR LAL Appellant
VERSUS
MANJIT KAUR Respondents

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.";


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.