Rasan Chettiar vs Rangayan Chettiar on 5 April, 1929
As regards Rajendra Lal Sur v. Atel Bihari Sur [1917] 44 Cal. 454 all it decided was that the Court could interfere.
Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 6 of 6 (0.34 seconds)Documents citing
Rajendra Lal Sur vs Atal Bihari Sur And Ors. on 23 June, 1916
Abdul Ghafoor vs Abdul Rahman on 10 January, 1951
), Rajendra Lal v. Atal Bihari Sur, 44 Cal.
Kamal Kumar Nag Choudhury vs Parbati Charan Kundu And Ors. on 25 May, 1960
L.J. 86, supra, see also Rajendra Lal v. Atal Bihari, 25 Cal.
Brown-Forman Mauritius Ltd. vs Jagatjit Industries Ltd. And Ors. on 15 October, 2004
Mr. Aggarwal has also relied on Rajendra Lal Sur v. Atal Bihari Sur and Ors., A.I.R. 1917 Calcutta 663, wherein it has been held that the High court has "ample jurisdiction, under S 107, Government of India Act, 1915, to set aside an order of a Subordinate Court granting leave to a plaintiff to withdraw a suit with liberty to bring a fresh suit, where such order has been made without opportunity afforded to the defendant to contest the plaintiffs application for withdrawal."
Ganga Prasad And Anr. vs Mt. Kishni And Anr. on 27 November, 1924
1. This is a revision against an order passed by a Mansif allowing a plaint to be withdrawn under Order 23, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure. It is admitted that the order cannot be supported on the merits. The question is whether any revision lies. In Rahmat ullah v. Dharam Singh A.I.R. 1922 All. 185, Banerji, J. allowed an application in revision in precisely similar circumstances. The Bombay and Calcutta High Courts have taken the same view in Rajindra Lal v. Atal Bihari (1917) 44 Cal.
Subasini Devi vs Ashutosh Lahiri on 11 February, 1924
2. Order 23, Rule (1) invests the Court with power to allow the plaintiff to withdraw a suit on certain conditions, namely, where the suit must fail by reason of some formal defect or that there are other grounds for allowing the prayer to withdraw. In this case the learned Judge has not assigned any reason why he thinks that the plaintiff should be allowed to withdraw from the suit with liberty to bring a fresh suit. This power has been conferred upon the Court to be exercised on certain conditions. The learned Judge has not mentioned there was any necessity for allowing the plaintiff to withdraw the suit and apparently he had no jurisdiction to pass an order under that provision of the law. It is more incumbent upon an appellate Court in giving permission to the plaintiff to withdraw a suit which has been fought strenuously in the Court below to record its reasons. There is evident authority for our power under Section 115 to interfere with an order like this. It will be enough to cite only one case, viz., the case of Bajendra Lal v. Atal Behave Sur (1916) 44 Cal. 454 for the view that an order like the present one can be revised under Section 115, Civil Procedure Code.
1