Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 6 of 6 (0.26 seconds)
Documents citing Sadaya Padayachi And Anr. vs Chinnaswami Naidu on 31 January, 1935

V.P. Nagarajan vs Prabhavathi on 19 April, 1988

10. An objection is taken by learned Counsel for the respondent as to the maintainability of the appeal. Learned Counsel placed reliance on a decision of a Division Bench of this Court in Sadaya Padayachi and Anr. v. Chinnasami Naidu 41 L.W. 811 : (1935)69 M.L.J. 99. Learned Counsel for the petitioner invites my attention to the amendment to Section 141, C.P. Code, brought in by Act 104 of 1976 whereby an explanation was added to the Section by which the proceedings under Order 9, Rule 9, C.P.C. were included in the expression 'proceedings' found in the Section.
Madras High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 7 - Full Document

Kalookhan Fazledin vs Surji Vallabhdas on 8 January, 1946

This decision was followed in a division bench ruling of the Madras High Court in Sadaya Padayachi v. Chinnaswami Naidu (1935) I.L.R. 58 Mad. 814 where also argument similar to the one addressed to me was pressed. It was urged that an appeal would lie under O. XLIII, Rule 1(c), by reason of the application of Section 141 of the Civil Procedure Code. The learned Judges point out that the provisions of Section 141 of the Civil Procedure Code had been invoked as sufficient warrant for the view that the provisions of O. IX, Rule 9, of the Civil Procedure Code, would apply to applications made under the same rule as well as to applications to set aside a dismissal of a suit; and then they go on to observe (p. 815) :
Bombay High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 2 - Full Document

Birendra Nath Biswas vs Monorama Devi And Ors. on 4 June, 1947

9. This has been clearly laid down in a comparatively recent case in Sadaya Padayachi v. Chinnaswami Naidu 22 A.I.R. 1935 Mad. 609. In that case an application under Order 9, Rule 13 to have an ex parte decree set aside was dismissed for default and an application made thereafter to have that order set aside and the original application restored was dismissed upon the merits. It was held that no appeal lay from the order made on the subsequent application.
Calcutta High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 2 - Full Document

Daya Chand vs Ram Phal And Anr. on 27 May, 1971

3. The sole question that has been argued before me is whether the order dated 7th May, 1970, by which the plaintiff's second application dated 7th June, 1968, had been dismissed by the trial Judge, was appealable or not. If latter be the case, then the impugned order would be without jurisdiction. On this point, there is admittedly divergence of judicial opinion. Lahore, Pepsu, Bombay and Madras High Courts have taken the view that such an order is not appealable, while a Bench of the Oudh High Court has taken a contrary view. Reference in this connection may be made to Lok Nath v. Mt. Sattan Bai, AIR 1923 Lah 302; Hira Lal Jwala Sahai v. Sitla Kahna, AIR 1951 Pepsu 82; Kalookhan Fazledin v. Surji Vallabhadas, AIR 1947 Bom 328; Laxmi Investment Co. Pvt. Ltd. Akola v. Tarachand Harbilas, AIR 1968 Bom 250; Sadaya Padayachi v. Chinnaswami Naidu AIR 1935 Mad 609 and Rameshwar Dutt v. Harihar, ILR 13 Luck 246=AIR 1937 Oudh 344.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 2 - Full Document
1