Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 12 (4.86 seconds)
Documents citing Mt. Parwati Kuer And Ors. vs Manna Lal Khetan And Ors. on 4 April, 1956

Ambika Prasad Singh And Ors. vs Thakur Prasad Singh And Ors. on 8 April, 1958

29. The cases in which a doubt was expressed in this High Court about the correctness of the decision in ILR 19 Pat 870 : (AIR 1940 Pat 346) (FB) (A) are Radhamohan v. Shreekrishna, ILR 27 Pat 242 : (AIR 1948 Pat 460) (Z26); Kali Prasad v. Tulshi Prasad, AIR 1954 Pat 49 (Z27) and in the order of reference of the Full Bench case of Mt. Parwati Kuer v. Manna Lal Khetan (S) AIR 1956 Pat 414 (Z23) in which the point did not ultimately fall to be decided as it was a case of striking of the name of one of the appellants for some technical defect and was not the case of death.
Patna High Court Cites 29 - Cited by 3 - Full Document

Harihar Pati vs Sisir Kumar Bose And Ors. on 6 August, 1958

6. There is a more recent decision by another Full Bench of the Patna High Court in Mt. Parwati Kuer v. Manna Lal, AIR 1956 Pat 414 where in course of tae argument before their Lordships, there was much discussion as to the correctness of the earlier Full Bench decision of that Court just cited above, AIR 1940 Pat 340. Their Lordships expressed the view in the later Full Bench decision that, in the matter before them, there was no question of abatement under Order 22, Rules 3 and 11 and therefore the ratio of the decision of the earlier decision of the Full Bench was not applicable and in fact Das C.J. in his judgment, clearly said that it was unnecessary to decide in that case whether the decision of the Full Bench in AIR 1940 Pat 346, was correct or not. There tore, the interpretation ot the law as made by the Full Bench of the Patna High Court in AIR 1940 Pat 346, still stands good and has been left undisturbed.
Orissa High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

State Of Bihar vs Bank Of Bihar Ltd. on 23 April, 1963

18. Two other decisions, namely, Suraj Prakash v.' Sant Lal Singh, AIR 1940 Pat 137 and Mt. Parwati Kuer v. Manna Lal Khetan, AIR 1956 Pat 414 (FB), were also cited by Mr. Singh on this point; but the facts of those cases are quite different. In the case of Suraj Prakash Puri, separate and distinct decrees had been passed against two sets of defendants by the lower Court, and only one set of the defendants had preferred the appeal, and, therefore, it was held that the decree could not be set aside against non-appearing set of defendants. In the case of Mosst. Parwati Kuer, the question was whether, in view of Rules 4 and 33 of Order 41, the ap pellate Court had powers or not to vary or reverse the mortgage decree granted by the lower Court in favour of the defendant, who is not impleaded either as a party appellant or a party respondent and whose name is ordered to be expunged from the memorandum of appeal on account of a technical defect. It was held that the appellate Court had such powers, and there was no question of abatement in such a case, but the. appellate Court could not pass a decree against a person who was not a party to the appeal. These two decisions are, therefore, of no help to Mr. Singh; and his last contention also fails.
Patna High Court Cites 20 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Anantalal Daga And Ors. vs Debi Prasad Pandey And Ors. on 25 July, 1958

Reading -these two provisions together it is manifest that in the present case some of the decree-holders could prefer an appeal widiout making the other decree-holders as parties to the appeal and the appellate court can pass an order in favour of those decree-holder also who are not parties in the appeal. This view has now been well settled by a Full Bench decision of this Court in Mt. Parwati Kuer v. Manna Lal Khetan, (S) AIR 1956 Pat 414. In that case it was held as under:
Patna High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 4 - V Ramaswami - Full Document

Ram Briksh Yadav And Anr. Etc. vs State Of Bihar And Ors. on 25 February, 1993

"In Mt. Parwati Kuer v. Manna Lal Khetan eported in AIR 1956 Pat 414, a Full Bench of this Court has held that if a suit is decreed as against various defendants, an appeal is main-tainable only at the instance of one or more of the defendants and the appellate Court in exercise of its power conferred upon it under Order XLI, Rule 33 of the Code of Civil Procedure would be entitled to grant relief in favour of a party who has not been impleaded in the appeal.
Patna High Court Cites 17 - Cited by 1 - S B Sinha - Full Document

Ghaki Mal Hukam Chand And Ors. vs Punjab National Bank Ltd. on 16 February, 1959

These decisions undoubtedly support the learned counsel. He also quoted Mt. Parwati Kuer v. Manna Lal Khetan, ILR 1956-35 Pat 449: ((S) AIR 1956 Pat 414) (FB), in which the effect of the provisions of Order 41, Rules 4 and 33, C. P. C., has been considered and it has been held that one of the defendants can file an appeal without even impleading the other defendants and if the appeal proceeds on grounds common to all the defendants, then the appellate Court can exercise the power of varying the decree in favour of even non-appealing defendants though they are not even parties to the appeal. .
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 21 - Cited by 9 - I D Dua - Full Document

Bindeshwari Prasad Mandal And Ors. vs Kunji Lal Mandal And Ors. on 8 March, 1967

In Mt. Parwati Kuer v. Manna Lal Khetan , it was held? by a Full Bench of this Court that, if the name of one of the appellants has been struck out for failure to remove a technical defect and if the appeal proceeds to hearing at the instance of the other appellants, the decree can be varied in favour of that appellant also, under Order XLI, Rule 4 of the Code whose name has been struck out.
Patna High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 0 - N L Untwalia - Full Document
1   2 Next