send mail to email@example.com mentioning your email id and mobileno registered with us! if details not recieved
Resend Opt after 60 Sec.
Please verify your mobile number
Please update your name
Subscribe to Notifications
Stay updated with the latest Current affairs and other important updates regarding video Lectures, Test Schedules, live sessions etc..
Refer & Earn
My Abhipedia Earning
Kindly Login to view your earning
Type your modal answer and submitt for approval
In a suit, 10.10.2007 was fixed for final hearing. On that date the defendants moved an application for adjournment on the grounds of illness. The prayer was allowed subject to payment of costs and 10.12.2007 was fixed for final hearing. On this date, counsel for both the parties were present and the counsel for the defendants after paying the costs moved another application for adjournment. This application was rejected by the court. Thereupon counsel for the defendants stated that he had no further instructions and was therefore, withdrawing from the case. The Court directed that the case would proceed
under Order XVII, Rule 3 of CPC. Thereafter the plaintiff produced his evidence and closed the case. On 10.2.2008 the suit was decided on merits. Under these circumstances, whether an application under Order IX Rule 13 CPC lies. Discuss and state any other remedy, if available to the defendants? (10 Marks)
By: santosh ProfileResourcesReport error
Access to prime resources