Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 10 (0.52 seconds)
Documents citing Santosh Kumar Mondal And Ors. vs Nandalal Chakrapani And Ors. on 17 August, 1962

Jarnail Singh, Assistant Excise And ... vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 3 February, 2006

In the case of Santosh Kumar v. Nandalal Chakrapani , Full Bench had held that abatement of a suit did not either operate as res judicata or preclude the defence or extinguish the title of the legal representative of the deceased plaintiff to the subject matter of the suit. This Full Bench placed reliance on a number of earlier judgments.
Central Administrative Tribunal - Chandigarh Cites 13 - Cited by 6 - Full Document

Krishnalal Sadhu And Ors. vs State Of West Bengal And Ors. on 27 January, 1965

17. The attention of this Court was also drawn to a decision of the Full Bench of this Court Santosh Kumar Mondal v. Nandalal Chakrapani. In this case a Full Bench of this Court consisting of Bachawat, D.N. Sinha, P. N. Mookerjee, G.K. Mitter and C.N. Laik JJ. has held that where there are more plaintiffs or more defendants than one in a suit and the decree appealed from proceeds on any ground, common to all the plaintiffs or to all the defendants and all or several of the plaintiffs or defendants appeal against the decree, the appellate Court can, in view of the provisions of Order 41 Rule 4 proceed with the appeal and reverse the decree of the trial Court in spite of the omission to bring on the record the heirs of one of the appellants who dies during the pendency of the appeal.
Calcutta High Court Cites 32 - Cited by 15 - Full Document

Banarjsi Dass (Deceased) Through Lrs. ... vs Meva Devi on 14 May, 1980

Inspite of the omission to bring on the record the heirs of one of the appellants who died during the pendency of the appeal the appellate court can proceed with the appeal and reverse the decree of the trial court in view of the provisions of 0 41 Rr 4 and 33 Civil Procedure Code (Santosh Kumar v. Nandalal) . The reason is that the order of eviction proceeds on a ground common to all the respondents. Their paths do not cross. They have a community of interest.
Delhi High Court Cites 14 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Bhuvneshwar Prasad Shukla vs Ramashray on 27 February, 2017

After hearing learned counsel appearing on behalf of both the parties and on consideration of the judgments in the cases of Santosh Kumar Vs. Nandalal reported in AIR 1963 Calcutta 289 and Hiralal Rupdeo Mandloi Vs. Deep reported in 1960 JLJ 415 which are supplied by both the parties and looking to the facts of the case because even the High Court has not decided the appeal on merit and is merely remitted back to the lower appellate Court after condoning the appeal to decide the appeal on merit. Therefore, in such circumstances, in place of going into the technicalities and looking to the delay in applying for setting aside the condonation of delay and for the reasons as stated by the lower appellate Court in my considered opinion the order impugned do not warrant in interference, therefore, the judgment supplied by counsel for the petitioner is of no help to him. In the facts of the present case, the order impugned passed by the trial Court is hereby upheld dismissing the petition.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1