Ajudhia Prasad And Anr. vs Chandan Lal And Anr. on 11 May, 1937
In Radhey Shiam v. Bihari Lal A.I.R. 1919 All.
Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 5 of 5 (0.25 seconds)Documents citing
Radhe Shiam vs Behari Lal on 11 April, 1918
Lalman And Ors. vs Chintamani on 12 December, 1918
2. With regard to costs, the respondent sought to argue that there was no right of appeal on the question of costs alone under Section 100 of the Code, because Section 35 had vested the discretion with regard to costs in the trial court, and a second appeal can only lie where the court has decided contrary to law or some usage having the force of law. We have already said all that has to be said upon this point in a recent case decided by ourselves-Radhe Shiam v. Behari Lal (1918) I.L.R., 40 All, 558 (562).
Lalman And Ors. vs Chinta Mani on 12 December, 1918
2. With regard to costs the respondent sought to argue that there was no right of appeal on the question of costs alone under Section 100 of the Code, because Section 35 had vested the discretion with regard to costs in the trial Court, and a second appeal can only lie where the Court has decided contrary to law or some usage having the force of law. We have already said all that has to be said upon this point in a recent case decided by ourselves: Radhey Shiam v. Bihari Lal 48 Ind. Cas. 478 : 40 A. 558 at p. 562 : 16 A.L.J. 592.
Mt. Hamidan Bibi vs Nanhe Mal And Anr. on 18 June, 1931
The decisions of this Court in Shiam Lal v. Ram Piari (1910) 32 All 25 and Radhe Shiam v. Behari Lal AIR 1919 All 453 are not opposed to the cursus curiae of this Court and turn upon a different point altogether. The decision under appeal is correct. I accordingly dismiss the appeal with costs.
Lila Dhar, Minor, Through Baid Ram vs Piarey Lal on 7 April, 1921
A two Division Bench decision of this Court adopted that principle in the case of Radhey Shiam v. Bihari Lal 43 Ind. Cas. 478 : 40 A. 558 : 16 A.L.J. 592 and we think that that must be accepted as the binding principle in this Province in this rather difficult question, The result is that the plaintiff is not bound to submit to having his suit dismissed. Indeed he is entitled to have it declared that the mortgage deed is not binding on him. But be can only obtain that relief on the condition that he gives back the exact sum which he received from the money-lender at the time of the contract. We remand the ease to the lower Appellate Court to ascertain the precise sum received by the plaintiff and dispose of the suit on these principles. The costs throughout will abide the event of the decision.
1