Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 9 of 9 (0.47 seconds)
Documents citing Sitaram @ Mahendra Ghosh And Ors. vs Sri Antaryami Mohapatra And 18 Ors. And ... on 5 September, 2003

Smt. K.Nagamani vs Smt. K.Rajeswari & Others ... Opp. ... on 14 December, 2012

7. Question no.(i) is with regard to maintainability of the Civil Revision Petition. Challenging maintainability of the Civil Revision Petition, Mr. Bhokta, learned counsel contended that the impugned order is interim in nature which does not finally decide the lis and therefore, the same cannot be challenged by way of revision under Section 115 of the CPC. Placing reliance on the decision of this Court in Sitaram @ Mahendra Ghosh v. Sri Antaryami Mohapatra and 18 others (CRP No. 89 of 2002) and other connected cases (supra), Mr. Bhokta submitted that the term "proceeding" must be proceeding of an equivalent status of a suit and does not include a proceeding arising in or out of a suit. Therefore, all the proceedings registered as Misc. Cases on the basis of miscellaneous application, be it for a temporary injunction, appointment of receiver, restoration of the suit, setting aside the ex parte decree will not come within the purview of the term "proceeding" as provided in the proviso to sub-Section (1) of Section 115 of the Code. Further, referring to the GRCO (Civil) Vol.-I Mr. Bhokta submitted that Rule 33 provides the list of miscellaneous jurisdiction cases in which application under Section 144 of CPC is included. Therefore, this case is not maintainable.
Orissa High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Smt. Sabitri Das vs Gangadhar Naik And Ors. on 18 June, 2004

OLR respectively at pages 703, 711 and 714 and also the case of Sitaram alias Mahendra Ghosh v. Sri Antaryami Mohapatra and 18 others, 2003 (II) OLR 409. Argument has been advanced in some of the revisions that the ratio laid down in the above noted citations are not consistent with the decision from the Apex Court having a superseding authority on precedent and therefore this Court should re-think on the legal issue i.e., on the question of maintainability. A Court has to function with an open mind to consider the legal consequences and position of law not only by referring to the statutes but also by adopting judicial precedents when found applicable. Thus, this Court again analyses on such legal issue.
Orissa High Court Cites 20 - Cited by 0 - P K Tripathy - Full Document

Ch. Ranganath Raju vs Bank Of India And Ors. on 13 November, 2006

15. Similarly, the decision of the learned Single Judge in the case of Sitaram alias Mahendra Ghosh v. Sri Antaryami Mohapatra and Ors. reported in 2003 (2) OLR 409 also is not applicable to the facts of the present case. That decision construed the provision of Section 115 of the Code on the question of revision. This Court is unable to appreciate the relevance of the said decision to the facts of the present case.
Orissa High Court Cites 30 - Cited by 1 - I Mahanty - Full Document

Sk. Raheman vs Sk. Sirajuddin on 18 June, 2004

6. In order of preference the question of maintainability is needed to be considered first. The issue which the opposite party raised is no more res integra: The legal consequence of the provision under Section 115 after amendment by Act 46 of 1999 has been considered by this Court in a batch of cases vide Sitaram @ Mahendra v. Sri Antaryami Mohapatra and Ors., 96 (2003) CLT 762 : 2003 (II) OLR 409. Relating to maintainability of a Civil Revision, this Court has held that :
Orissa High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 0 - P K Tripathy - Full Document
1