Notes

1.Doma Choudhary And Ors. vs Ram Naresh Lal And Ors. on 7 November, 1958
Equivalent citations: AIR 1959 Pat 121, 1958 (6) BLJR 783
Author: K Sahai
Bench: V Ramaswami, K Sahai, K Singh
JUDGMENT K. Sahai, J.
The principal point which requires consideration in this case is whether a Court can, in exercise of its inherent power set aside an order of dismissal for default of an application under Rule 9 of Order IX of the Code of Civil Procedure and restore the application.

2.Ghanashyam Mohapatra And Ors. vs Suryamani Swain on 10 September, 1963
Equivalent citations: AIR 1964 Ori 205
Author: R Das
Bench: R Narasimham, R Das
JUDGMENT R.K. Das, J.
This is a decree-holders' appeal against the appellate decision of the Dist. Judge of Cutback, Dhenkanal confirming the order of the Munsif rejecting their application for execution as time-barred.

3.Manik Mandal And Ors. vs Bharosi Singh on 1 August, 1958
Equivalent citations: AIR 1959 Pat 225, 1958 (6) BLJR 848
Author: R Choudhary
Bench: V Ramaswami, R Choudhary
JUDGMENT R.K. Choudhary, J.
This application is by the plaintiffs and is directed against an order of remand passed by the learned Additional Subordinate Judge of Monghyr on 6-10-1955, in Title Appeal No. 39 of 1955.

4.Hemchand Mahabir Prasad ... vs Subhkaran Nandlal Baragra on 22 June, 1966
Equivalent citations: AIR 1967 Bom 361, (1966) 68 BOMLR 857
Bench: V Desai
ORDER (1) On the 14th August 1964 the petitioner-landlord filed an ejectment suit against the respondent-tenant in the Court of Small Causes at Bombay on the ground that the respondent was a defaulter in the payment of rent for more than six months. the summons of the suit was sent by registered post but it was returned by the post office as "unclaimed" The petitioner thereafter tried to serve the summons through the bailiff of the court but on two days when he went with the bailiff to the premises he found the premises locked and the service, therefore, could not be effected. On the 27th August 1964 he obtained an order from the court for substituted service, which directed the substituted service to be effected by pasting the summons on the premises and sending a copy thereof by registered post. Since the defendant did not appear even thereafter, an ex parte decree in favour of the plaintiff was passed on the 10th November 1964.

5.Arjun Singh vs Mohindra Kumar & Ors on 13 December, 1963
Equivalent citations: 1964 AIR 993, 1964 SCR (5) 946
Author: N R Ayyangar
Bench: Ayyangar, N. Rajagopala
HEADNOTE:
There were three suits in two of which the appellant was
defendant and in the other the plaintiff. One of the three
was the main suit (in which appellant was a defendant and
the others were connected suits. They were ordered to be
consolidated for the purpose of hearing and a day was fixed
for pronouncing judgment. The appellant did not appear and
ex parte orders were passed against him.