Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 3 of 3 (0.89 seconds)
Documents citing Sayyed Usman Saheb And Ors. vs Vegisena Sivaramaraju And Ors. on 5 December, 1949

Chiranji Lal vs Bhiko on 6 February, 1969

(15) The foremost exponent of the opposite view is a Full Bench of Madras High Court (Satyanarayana Rao, Viswanatha Sastri and Taghava Rao JJ.) in Sayyed Usman Saheb and others v. Vegisena Sivaramraju and others Before quoting a passage from the judgment of Satyanarayana Rao J., which sets out the case against the competency of the appeal in a language which can hardly be improved, I would like to make clear that it was nto contended before me by the appellant's counsel, as indeed it could nto be contended, that the order of the first Court was made either under section 47 or section 144 C.P.C. Section 47 in terms applies to parties to the original decree or their representatives. The respondent was admittedly nto claiming her rights through her son Dalip Singh, the original judgment-debtor. The application of S. 47 was therefore clearly excluded. This was also nto a case of the decree of the Court of first instance under which the property was sold, having been varied or reversed in any manner. Therefore section 144 was also nto attracted in any manner. As a result, the impugned order could nto be termed as a decree as defined in section 2(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure. The only provision under which the impugned order could be passed is section 151 Civil Procedure Code and it is on that basis that the appeal was argued on behalf of the appellant before the lower appellate Court as well as in this Court. It was nto contended that the Court passing the impugned order could nto or should nto have acted under section 151 Civil Procedure Code and should have left the respondent to pursue her remedy by means of a suit.
Delhi High Court Cites 20 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Mangilal Kajodimal vs Shankar Shravan Nikam on 27 September, 1955

and he thought that it would be a reasonable view to take that the order of restitution passed under Section 151 should be taken to be an order made under Section 144. With respect, I am unable to agree with the view thus expressed by Greaves J. On the other hand, in Usman Saheb v. Sivaramaraju , F.B., a Full Bench of the Madras High Court has held that no appeal lies against an order of restitution passed under Section 151 of the Code. There appears to have been a conflict in the reported decisions of the Madras High Court on this point; but the said conflict has been resolved by the Full Bench in favour of the view that an appeal does not lie against an order of resitution under Section 151.
Bombay High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 1 - Full Document
1