Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 5 of 5 (0.87 seconds)
Documents citing Bani Madho Ram vs (Pandit) Mahadeo Pandey on 23 April, 1930

B. Manmohan Lal And Ors. vs B. Raj Kumar Lal And Ors. on 31 October, 1945

37. Learned Counsel for the opposite party has drawn our attention to two recent decisions of this Court where the word "appeal" in Section 115, Civil P.C., was interpreted to include a second appeal. The first is a decision reported in Beni Madho Ram v. Mahadeo Pandey ('30) 17 A.I.R. 1930 All. 604. No reasons are given for the view expressed and the point has been more or less, assumed. The rest of the judgment shows that the observations were in the nature of an obiter, as their Lordships went on to hold that there was no ground for interference in revision.
Allahabad High Court Cites 33 - Cited by 17 - Full Document

Pyarchand And Ors. vs Dungar Singh on 18 July, 1952

24. But this is only one of the conditions which has to be satisfied. The other condition which has also to be satisfied is that there should be no appeal from that order to the High Court and' I now turn to consider this aspect. It is obvious that where there is a direct appeal to the High Court from the order in question, no one would think of filing a revision. The difficulty arises in those cases in which there is no direct appeal to the High Court from the order in question. In such a case, the matter which falls for consideration is whether it should be considered that there is an appeal provided to the High Court, if the order in question can be taken in appeal to the High Court directly or indirectly forthwith or after sometime. It is now well settled that the word "appeal" in Section 115 is not restricted to a first appeal and where even a second appeal lies to the High Court, no revision lies. I may in this connection refer to -- 'Pattammal v. Krishnaswami Iyer', AIR 1923 Mad 794, --'Bani Madho Ram v. Mahadeo Pandey', AIR 1930 All 604 (2), -- 'Madhu Mian v. Rajaram Barai', AIR 1943 Cal 177, -- 'Mt. Barko v. Mt. Habiba Khanam', AIR 1947 Oudh 101.
Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur Cites 31 - Cited by 3 - Full Document

A.H. Ghaznavi And Anr. vs Sardar Gurcharan Singh on 3 May, 1937

In Beni Madho Ram v. Mahadeo Pandey A.I.R. 1930 All. 604, a Bench of this Court held that there is no ground for restricting the scope of the words "in which no appeal lies thereto" to cases where no appeal lies direct to the High Court from the order sought to be revised, and so long as the party has a right to come up to the High Court by way of an appeal and has failed to avail himself of that opportunity by first going up to the District Judge and then coming up to the High Court, he cannot ask the High Court to interfere in revision. This is exactly what has happened in the present case. The applicants, if they were aggrieved by the ex parte decree and if they thought that on the date when the Civil Judge proposed to dispose of the suit on the merits ex parte he should not have done so, ought to have appealed against the decree to the District Judge and should, if necessary, afterwards have come to this Court. That remedy being open to them, it cannot be said that no appeal lay to the High Court in the case which was decided by the learned Civil Judge on 20th August 1931.
Allahabad High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 3 - Full Document

Marwadi Doolaji Siremal vs Nasuvali Kulusum Bee And Anr. on 7 May, 1934

1. A preliminary objection has been taken that no civil revision petition lies and Barn Madho Ram v. Mahadeo Pandey 126 Ind. Cas. 832 : A I R 1930 All 604 : (1930) A L J 924 : Ind. Rul. (1930) All. 880 is relied on. I am not inclined to agree with that decision Order IX, Rule 9, explicitly permits the plaintiff to apply for restoration of the dismissed petition. Once a petition to restore lies, the party has necessarily the right, to question the correctness of the order on it in appeal and on revision. It is another matter--whether there are adequate grounds for interference in revision The fact that an appeal lies against the decree in the suit vide Muniswami Gouda y. Janjadu, 35 Ind. Cas. 65 (2) is therefore irrelevant and cannot stand in the way of the petition under Order IX, Rule 9, being considered and the matter carried to higher Courts. I overrule the objection.
Madras High Court Cites 1 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1