Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 7 of 7 (0.48 seconds)
Documents citing Tekait Ajant Singh vs Sundar Mall on 12 June, 1912

Muri Ga Chetty And Ors. vs Rajaswamy And Ors. on 5 August, 1915

17. The other case relied upon before us is that of Tekait Ajant Singh v. Sundar Mall 25 M. 166 (F.B.) That case seems to be distinguishable in this respect that there the question which the Subordinate Judge had to consider was one necessarily affecting the merits of the subject-matter of the suit; it affected the original plaintiff because he was made a pro forma defendant instead of plaintiff, on the ground that he had assigned his rights to the applicant, and that the rights on the basis of which he had come to the Court were no more vested in him; it affected the defendants because the scope of the suit was enlarged so as to include the rights not only of the original plaintiff, bat also of a stranger to the suit whose assignee the applicant claimed to be. It was admitted there that the further hearing of the suit on the merits could not proceed without those questions being determined; but the Subordinate Judge thought that a fresh suit was necessary for their determination.
Madras High Court Cites 9 - Cited by 4 - Full Document

Syam Mandal vs Sati Nath Banerjee And Ors. on 3 August, 1916

We are further of opinion that the Court below also should have considered the matter from this point of view; as explained in Ajant Singh v. Sundar Mall 10 Ind. Cas. 567 : 17 C.W.N. 862, when an ex parte order has been made to the prejudice of a litigant who has not been afforded an opportunity to be heard--an opportunity which in this case he was entitled to have under express statutory provisions--the order must be regarded as subject to the implication that it may be revoked at the instance of the party affected thereby arid the Court has inherent power to give such directions as the justice of the case may require. We shall now proceed to examine the two grounds urged by the judgment-debtor in the Court below and reiterated here.
Calcutta High Court Cites 16 - Cited by 11 - Full Document

Jagannath Panja vs Mahesh Chandra Pal on 10 July, 1916

In the companion volume on Chancery Forms by Daniell, there are two forms (1398 and 1401) which set out the terms of the application and the contents of the affidavit whereby the application must be supported. It is clear from the form of the affidavit that special grounds for the application must be made out. Substantially, the same procedure is followed in the Courts of the United States, This procedure should, in our opinion, be followed in our Courts, based as it is upon the elementary rule that no order adverse to a party litigant should be made by a Court of Justice till he has been apprised of the charges brought against him and has been allowed reasonable opportunity to show cause. As was observed by this Court in the case of Tekait Ajant Singh v. Sundar Mall 16 Ind. Cas. 567 : 17 C.W.N. 862, it is a rule of universal application, based on the plainest grounds of justice, equity and good conscience, that a judicial order, which may possibly affect or prejudice any party, should not be finally made, unless he has been afforded an opportunity to be heard. Consequently, the order for removal of the appellant from the office of guardian cannot be supported. The charges brought against him were of a grave character; if the view taken by the translator, on an examination of the accounts, is well-founded, there is good reason to apprehend that there has been serious mismanagement of the estate of the infant by the guardians, and their conduct may possibly amount to a criminal offence. It is obviously just that, in a case of this character, opportunity should be given to the appellant to explain the accounts filed by him and to justify his conduct.
Calcutta High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 9 - Full Document

Syed Salahuddin Ahmad vs Janki Mahton And Ors. on 17 December, 1952

This case was followed by another Judge of this Court in -- 'Moharmani Kuer v. Bhankumar Chand', AIR 19.36 Pat 176 (B), who also relied upon the case of -- 'Ajant Singh v. Sundar Mal, 16 Ind Cas 567 (C). In these cases no doubt the facts were different, but they all held that if some order had been passed by the Court without notice to that party, that order could be revoked at the instance of any party prejudiced thereby.
Patna High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Rajendra Lal Sur vs Atal Bihari Sur And Ors. on 23 June, 1916

But as pointed out in the case of Ajant Singh v. Sundar Mall 16 Ind. Cas. 667 ; 17 C.W.N. 862, it is an elementary rule of universal application and founded upon the plainest principles of justice that a judicial order which I may possibly affect or prejudice any party cannot be made unless he has been afforded an opportunity to be heard; this is merely an instance of the application of the maxim audi alteram partem. In the present case the defendants have incurred costs to resist the claim of the plaintiffs. They have not had opportunity given to them by the Subordinate Judge to contest the truth of the allegations made by the plaintiffs in their application for withdrawal from the suit. If they had notice of the application, they might well have appeared and contended, that although the plaintiffs might be allowed to withdraw from the suit, they should not be permitted to harass the defendants with a fresh suit on the same cause of action. They might also have urged that even if an order were made in terms of the petition, the defendants should be indemnified to the extent of the costs incurred by them. We are of opinion that the Subordinate Judge should not have made an ex parte order of this description and that he has acted with material irregularity in the exercise of his jurisdiction.
Calcutta High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 6 - Full Document

Abdul Hakim Chowdhury vs Hem Chandra Das on 25 June, 1914

4. Now whether, as speaking for myself, I am able to hold that Order XLVII, Rule 7, enables the respondent to take objection before us now in this appeal from the final decree or order passed or made in the suit, or whether he is entitled to invoke the inherent power of this Court, as both of us are prepared to hold and as was held in the case of Ajant Singh v. Sundar Mall 16 Ind. Cas. 567 : 17 C.W.N. 862 it is clear that the non-compliance with Rule 4 of Order XLVII renders the granting of this application for review, which was prejudicial to the respondent, a nullity and that such an application could not be granted without previous notice. We have already shown that under Order XIJI, Rule 1, filing of the decree of the Appellate Court is imperative, and that the appeal cannot be said to have been perferred untill that decree is tiled. Appeal No. 2024 is, therefore, clearly barred by limitation.
Calcutta High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1