High CourtsSingle Bench(2001) 02 P&H CK 0012

Smt. Bimla vs Tarsem Lal Goyal

Punjab And Haryana At Chandigarh · Decided on 22 February 2001 · Citation: (2001) 129 PLR 677 : (2001) 4 RCR(Civil) 132

HON’BLE JUDGES
V.K. Jhanji, J
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
Review Application No. 98-CII of 2000 in C.R. No. 5963 of 1999

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

3 paragraphs · 224 words

V.K. Jhanji, J.—Counsel for the applicant contends that applicant- petitioner did not file any appeal because no decree was drawn and in this regard, petitioner had filed an application but vide order dated 22.9.1999 the said application has been dismissed by saying that since there was no conclusive determination or the rights of the parties and no matter of controversy was settled by the Court, no decree is required to be drawn. It is contended that because order dated 22.9.1999, decree was not drawn and, therefore, no appeal could be preferred. This contention is without any merit because under Rule 6-A of Order XX, CPC an appeal can be preferred against the decree without filing copy of the decree and in such a case, last para of the judgment would be treated as decree. Accordingly, applicant, if so advised, may file an appeal without copy of the decre-sheet. In case limitation to file appeal has already expired, applicant shall be at liberty to file an application under Sections 5 and 14 of the Limitation Act and in that event, the Court shall consider the appeal as well as application under Sections 5 and 14 of the Limitation Act, on merits.

2.

As far as this application is concerned, no case made out for recalling order dated 19.9.2000. The same is dismissed.

3.

Application dismissed.