Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 9 of 9 (1.00 seconds)
Documents citing Tribeni Mishra And Ors. vs Rampujan Mishra And Ors. on 26 February, 1969

Manoj Kumar Dalmia vs Om Prakash Dalmia And 2 Ors on 21 March, 2022

In Laxmi Narian SSP 25/45 7 ia 795 of 2022.doc Goddodia's case (supra) it was held that section 44 is the only provision of law under which a judgment or an order or a decree which is sought to be proved with a view to establish the plea of respondent judicata can be avoided, similarly, in Tribeni Mishra v. Rampuijan Mishra. it was held that the right as given by section 44.
Bombay High Court Cites 35 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Manoj Kumar Dalmia vs Om Prakash Dalmia And 2 Ors on 21 March, 2022

In Laxmi Narian SSP 25/45 7 ia 795 of 2022.doc Goddodia's case (supra) it was held that section 44 is the only provision of law under which a judgment or an order or a decree which is sought to be proved with a view to establish the plea of respondent judicata can be avoided, similarly, in Tribeni Mishra v. Rampuijan Mishra. it was held that the right as given by section 44.
Bombay High Court Cites 35 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Nechhittar Singh vs Jagir Kaur And Ors. on 26 September, 1985

similarly, in Tribeni Mishra v. Rampuijan Mishra. AIR 1970 Patna 13. it was held that the right as given by S. 44. Evidence Act has not been fettered by any limitation whatsoever and it is manifest that such a right is quite independent of the right to get a judgment or a decree. etc., set aside by bringing a regular suit for the purpose. A decree or an order can be challenged on ground of fraud in a collateral proceeding without any suit for setting aside the decree irrespective of the time when the judgment was delivered or the order of the decree was passed.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 3 - Full Document

Kishan Lal Barwa vs Sharda Saharan & Another on 18 February, 2015

similarly, in Tribeni Mishra v. Rampuijan Mishra. AIR 1970 Patna 13. it was held that the right as given by S. 44. Evidence Act has not been fettered by any limitation whatsoever and it is manifest that such a right is quite independent of the right to get a judgment or a decree. etc., set aside by bringing a regular suit for the purpose. A decree or an order can be challenged on ground of fraud in a collateral proceeding without any suit for setting aside the decree irrespective of the time when the judgment was delivered or the order of the decree was passed.
Allahabad High Court Cites 40 - Cited by 7 - A K Mishra - Full Document

S. Sama Iyer And Ors. vs O.K.K. Appachi Gounder on 26 September, 1975

7. Learned Counsel for the respondent drew my attention to the provisions of Section 44 of the Evidence Act and relied on the decision in Tribeni Mishra v. Rampujan , in support of the proposition that a decree or order can be challenged on ground of fraud in a collateral proceeding without any suit for setting aside the decree, irrespective of the time when the judgment was delivered or order or decree was passed. Section 44 of the Evidence Act provides that "Any party to a suit or other proceeding may show that any judgment, order or decree which is relevant under Sections 40, 41 or 43, and which has been proved by the adverse party, was delivered by a Court not competent to deliver it, or was obtained by fraud or collusion." (italics by me). It is this provision which was construed by the Patna High Court in the case cited. The relevant passage in paragraph 13 which is found extracted in the head note is as follows: " The right as given by Section 44 has not been fettered by any limitation whatsoever and it is manifest that such a right is quite independent of the right to get a judgment or decree etc. set aside by bringing a regular suit for the purpose. A decree or order can be challenged on ground of fraud in a collateral proceeding without any suit for setting aside the decree irrespective of the time when the judgment was delivered or order or decree was passed."
Madras High Court Cites 9 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1