Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 73 (0.87 seconds)
Documents citing Ramagya Prasad Gupta & Ors vs Murli Prasad on 3 April, 1972

Kokilaben Shaileshkumar Shah vs Kantilal Purshottamdas Patel (Since ... on 20 March, 2026

In Shri Ramagya Prasad Gupta v. Sri Murli Prasad , an effort was made to get the decision in Sheodan Singh (supra) reconsidered. But the Court did not consider it necessary to examine the matter as the subject matter of two suits being different one of the necessary ingredients for applicability of Section 11 of the C.P.C. were found missing.4. Although none of these decisions were concerned with a situation where no appeal was filed against the decision in connected suit but it appears that where an appeal arising out of connected suits is dismissed on merits the other cannot be heard, and has to be dismissed. The question is what happens where no appeal is filed, as in this case from the decree in connected suit. Effect of non filing of appeal against a judgment or decree is that it become final. This finality can be taken away only in accordance with law. Same consequences follows when a judgment or decree in a Page 49 of 63 Uploaded by SINDHU NAIR(HC01395) on Wed Mar 25 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Mar 25 21:34:08 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/356/2000 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 20/03/2026 undefined connected suit is not appealed from.
Gujarat High Court Cites 53 - Cited by 0 - S K Vishen - Full Document

Gulam Mohammad And Anr. vs Kishan Lal And Ors. on 22 January, 1975

8-B. An argument has been advanced on the basis of Rameshwar Prasad v. Shambherilal Jagannath, AIR 1963 SC 1901; Shri Chand v. M/s. Jagdish Per-shad Kishan Chand, AIR 1966 SC 1427; Ramgya Prasad Gupta v. Murli Prasad, AIR 1972 SC 1181 and Dwarka Prasad Singh v. Harikant Praaad Singh. AIR 1973 SC 655 that where the plaintiffs, whose suit had been dismissed, had filed appeal and thereafter one of them died and his heirs were not brought on the record, the appellate Court had no power to proceed to hear the appeal and reverse or vary the decree in favour of all the plaintiffs under Order 44, Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure, even when the decree proceeded on a ground common to all the plaintiffs. This proposition, with respect, is correct. But the principle laid down in the above cited cases has no application to the facts and circumstances of the present case. As a matter of fact an exception was engrafted by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in a case where some of the plaintiffs filed appeal making one or more of them who were jointly interested in the claim a party respondent and on his death his heirs had not been brought on the record.
Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur Cites 11 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Biswanath Das vs Debiprosad Paul And Anr. on 13 July, 1978

In Ramagya Frasad v. Murli Prasad's case , the subject matter of the two suits was different. Hence, the decision in this case cannot be based on the principles enunciated in that decision. About the case of Narayan Prabhu , the test, if two inconsistent decrees would come into existence, has already been dealt with. In the case of Lonankutty , one side asserted that the flow of water and its discharge was necessary both for agriculture and for prawn breeding on the respondents' land. The respondents subsequently filed a counter suit asking for injunction restraining the appellant from interfering with their prescriptive rights. So, the right of discharge of water was common to both the cases, and hence, that was the issue which directly and substantially arose in that decision. Hence, that case is also distinguishable. From the aforesaid discussion, the preliminary objection raised on behalf of the respondents cannot be accepted and I hold that the present appeal is not barred by the doctrine of res judicata.
Calcutta High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Sir Sobha Singh & Sons Ltd. vs Behari Lal Beni Pershad on 13 March, 1996

Their Lordships pointed out that in Ramagya Prasad Gupta vs. Murli Prasad "an effort was made to get the decision in Sheodan Singh reconsidered. But the Court did not consider it necessary to examine the matter as the subject-matter of two suits being different one of the necessary ingredients for applicability of Section 11 of the Civil Procedure Code were found missing." Having thus referred to the previous cases, their Lordships have now clearly held as follows:- "ALTHOUGH none of these decisions were concerned with a situation where no appeal was filed against the decision in connected suit but it appears that where an appeal arising out of connected suit is dismissed on merits the other cannot be heard, and has to be dismissed. The question is what happens where no appeal is filed, as in this case from the decree in connected suit. Effect of non-filing of appeal against a judgment or decree is that it becomes final. This finality can be taken away only in accordance with law. Same consequences follow when a judgment or decree in a connected suit is not appealed from."
Delhi High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 1 - M J Rao - Full Document

Shri Ramesh Chand vs Jindu Ram And Others Decided On ... on 17 May, 2022

respondent. The respondent, however, contended that since two suits were decided by a common judgment, each suit resulted in a separate and independent decree, and therefore, an appeal filed from only one of the decrees would be incompetent. The Gujarat High Court, after examining various judgments of the Supreme Courts and different High Courts and mainly relying on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Premier Tyres Limited (supra) and Sheodan Singh (supra), Ramagya Prasad Gupta (supra) in para 10.4, 11 and 18 held as under:-
Himachal Pradesh High Court Cites 30 - Cited by 0 - J R Dua - Full Document

Shri Ramesh Chand vs Jindu Ram And Others Decided On ... on 17 May, 2022

respondent. The respondent, however, contended that since two suits were decided by a common judgment, each suit resulted in a separate and independent decree, and therefore, an appeal filed from only one of the decrees would be incompetent. The Gujarat High Court, after examining various judgments of the Supreme Courts and different High Courts and mainly relying on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Premier Tyres Limited (supra) and Sheodan Singh (supra), Ramagya Prasad Gupta (supra) in para 10.4, 11 and 18 held as under:-
Himachal Pradesh High Court Cites 30 - Cited by 0 - J R Dua - Full Document

Shri Ramesh Chand vs Jindu Ram And Others Decided On ... on 17 May, 2022

respondent. The respondent, however, contended that since two suits were decided by a common judgment, each suit resulted in a separate and independent decree, and therefore, an appeal filed from only one of the decrees would be incompetent. The Gujarat High Court, after examining various judgments of the Supreme Courts and different High Courts and mainly relying on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Premier Tyres Limited (supra) and Sheodan Singh (supra), Ramagya Prasad Gupta (supra) in para 10.4, 11 and 18 held as under:-
Himachal Pradesh High Court Cites 30 - Cited by 0 - J R Dua - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next