Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 1533 (4.29 seconds)
Documents citing Kiran Singh And Others vs Chaman Paswan And Others on 14 April, 1954

Vijay Sharma vs Sheetal Sharma And Anr on 14 November, 2024

Thus, where the defect in the jurisdiction is of the kind which falls within Section 21 CPC or Section 11 of the Suits Valuation Act, 1887, an objection to jurisdiction cannot be raised except in the manner and subject to the conditions mentioned thereunder. Far from helping the case of the respondent, the judgment in Kiran Singh [Kiran Singh v. Chaman Paswan, AIR 1954 SC 340] holds that an objection to territorial jurisdiction and pecuniary jurisdiction is different from an objection to jurisdiction over the subject matter. An objection to the want of territorial jurisdiction does not travel to the root of or to the inherent lack of jurisdiction of a civil court to entertain the suit.
Himachal Pradesh High Court Cites 48 - Cited by 0 - V S Thakur - Full Document

Pradeep Chand Sharma And Others vs Of on 1 April, 2017

20. The Apex Court in Kiran Singh and others vs. Chaman Paswan and others, AIR 1954 (41), SC 340 was dealing with a case for recovery of possession of more than of 12 acres of land. The suit was dismissed. The plaintiff thereafter filed an appeal in the court of District Judge who also dismissed the appeal. In the second appeal, the rt plaintiffs for the first time raised an objection that the suit itself had not been properly valued for the purpose of Court fee and jurisdiction and prayed that their appeal should be treated as a first appeal against the order of the learned trial Court. The High Court rejected the plea of the plaintiffs on the ground that the defendants could succeed only when they established prejudice on the merits of the case. An appeal was filed before the Apex Court and it was urged that the decree passed by the District Judge was a nullity because in an original suit having valuation of Rs.9980/-, appeal would lie to the High Court alone and not to the District Judge. The Apex Court held as follows:-
Himachal Pradesh High Court Cites 26 - Cited by 0 - T S Chauhan - Full Document

Shri Gorkhi Ram vs Shri Roshan Lal And Others ... on 16 November, 2016

20. The Apex Court in Kiran Singh and others vs. Chaman Paswan and others, AIR 1954 (41), SC 340 was dealing with a case for recovery of possession of more than 12 acres of land. The suit was dismissed. The plaintiff thereafter filed an appeal in the court of District Judge who also dismissed the appeal. In the second appeal, the plaintiffs for the first time raised an objection that the suit itself had not been properly valued for the purpose of Court fee and jurisdiction and prayed that their appeal should be treated as a first appeal against the order of the learned trial Court. The High Court rejected the plea of the plaintiffs on the ground that the defendants could succeed only when they established prejudice on ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 21:33:42 :::HCHP 13 the merits of the case. An appeal was filed before the Apex Court and it was urged that the decree passed by .
Himachal Pradesh High Court Cites 25 - Cited by 0 - T S Chauhan - Full Document

Siddappa S/O Bharamappa Bilagi @ Bidari vs Somawwa W/O Mayappa Bilagi @ Bidari on 29 March, 2022

"57. The policy underlying Section 21 of Code of Civil Procedure is that when the case has been tried by a court on merits and the judgment rendered, it should not be liable to be reversed purely on technical grounds, unless it has resulted in failure of justice. The provisions akin to Section 21 are also contained in Section 11 of the Suit Valuation Act, 1887 and Section 99 of the Code of Civil Procedure. This Court had the occasion to consider the principle behind Section 21, Code of Civil Procedure and Section 11 of the Suit Valuation Act, 1887 in Kiran Singh v. Chaman Paswan [K iran Singh v. Chaman Paswan, AIR 1954 SC 340] . In para 7 of the judgment following was laid down: (AIR p. 342) "7. ... T he policy underlying Sections 21 and 99 of the Civil Procedure Code and Section 11 of the Suits Valuation Act is the same , namely, that when a case had been tried by a court on the merits and judgment rendered, it should not be liable to be reversed purely on technical grounds, unless it had resulted in failure of j ustice , and the policy of the legislature has been to treat objections to jurisdiction both territorial and pecuniary as technical and not open to consideration by an appellate court, unless there has been a prejudice on the merits. The contention of the appellants, therefore , that the decree and judgment of the District Court, Monghyr, should be treated as a nullity cannot be sustained under Section 11 of the Suits Valuation Act."
Karnataka High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 0 - R V Hosmani - Full Document

Bharatbhai Nanabhai Harijan vs Mangalsingh Shyamsingh Gil on 8 August, 2018

In the decision in Kiran Singh v. Chaman Paswan (AIR 1954 SC 340) (supra) while the Supreme Court found defect of jurisdiction, refused to interfere on the ground that no prejudice had been caused in that case on valuation given in plaint. Appeal would lie before the District Judge. On revision of valuation first appeal would lie only in High Court. But the first appeal was heard by the District Judge. Supreme Court found that no prejudice had been caused in that case. The consideration of absence of prejudice weighed with the Court to reject the objection.
Gujarat High Court Cites 111 - Cited by 0 - J B Pardiwala - Full Document

Mustafa Khan S/O Ibrahim Khan Pathan vs Mst. Jainabbi W/O M.A. Hafiz And Ors. on 8 August, 1994

17. It is apparent from the facts and circumstances of the case that in. the compromise decree even the share of the applicant has been incorporated. Similarly, though the suit is for declaration, restraining non-applicants Nos. 1 to 3 from disturbing the plaintiffs' possession, the suit and the causes cannot be split up by entering into a-compromise between some of the plaintiffs and the defendants. There is no dispute that the compromise is beyond the pleadings and the issues framed in the suit. The applicant is not a party to the compromise petition. On the contrary, he has raised objection to the compromise. Considering the provisions of Order XXIII, Rule 3, of the Code of Civil Procedure, and the provisions of Rules 53 and 54 of the Maharashtra State Lok Nyayalaya Rules 1986, and various pronouncements, discussed above, the decree itself being ultra vires and, therefore, void and a nullity, the applicant has a right under Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure to raise an objection or challenge the decree before the Executing Court, as observed by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in the cases of Kiran. Singh v. Chaman Paswan and Sushil Kumar Mehta v. Govind Ram Bohra (cited supra).
Bombay High Court Cites 18 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Shambhu Devi vs Aayushi Alingan & Anr on 28 July, 2016

In Kiran Singh v. Chaman Paswan this Court held: (AIR p. 342, paras Patna High Court MA No.420 of 2013 dt.28-07-2016 9 6-7) `6. ... If the question now under consideration fell to be determined only on the application of general principles governing the matter, there can be no doubt that the District Court of Monghyr was `coram non judice' and that its judgment and decree would be nullities. The question is what is the effect of Section 11 of the Suits Valuation Act on this position.
Patna High Court Cites 24 - Cited by 0 - A K Trivedi - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next