Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 10 (1.68 seconds)
Documents citing Saiyed Sirajul Hasan vs Sh. Syed Murtaza Ali Khan Bahadur And ... on 6 August, 1991

Gurjant Singh vs Krishan Chander And Others on 27 March, 2000

In Saiyed Sirajul Hasan vs. Sh. Syed Murtaza Ali Khan Bahadur & Ors. (9), the Delhi High Court had held that rejoinder cannot be filed as a matter of right and it is an absolute discretion of the Court to grant leave to present a fresh pleading. A party seeking permission under Order 8 Rule 9 has to provide "cogent reason for permission" to file additional plea.
Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - B S Chauhan - Full Document

Raj Prakash Decd. Thr .Lrs vs Jai Prakash Thr. Lrs on 24 April, 2012

2 Record shows that the present suit is a suit for partition which was CM(M) No.1485-89/2005 Page 1 of 9 filed in the year 1992 by the plaintiff against the sole defendant, his brother. Written statement was filed by the defendant on 06.9.1993; issues were framed on 25.7.1994; thereafter the defendant expired and his legal representatives had been brought on record vide order dated 31.3.2003; on 13.8.2003 the present application had been filed; the contention of the legal representatives of the deceased defendant was that they have their own independent right to file a written statement; this prayer made in the present application has been rejected. Admittedly along with this application the proposed written statement was not filed. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon a judgment of this Court reported in AIR 1992 Delhi 162 Saiyed Siurajul Hasan Vs. Syed Murtaza Ali Khan Bahadur & Ors. to support his submission that the provisions of Order 22 Rule 4 of the Code permits the legal representatives of the deceased defendant to take up "any defence', only limitation being that the defence so made must be "appropriate to his character as the legal representative of the deceased defendant".
Delhi High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 0 - I Kaur - Full Document

Smt.Durga Devi vs Sh. Kirpa Ram Through His Lrs on 14 May, 2011

Here, I am fortified by the judgment reported as AIR 1992 DELHI 162 titled as Saiyad Sirajul Hasan Vs. Syed Murtaza Ali Khan Bahadur wherein it has been held as under:­ "The party applying under Order Smt. Durga Devi Vs. Sh. Kirpa Ram through his LRs (Suit No.35/08) Page No.11 of pages 13 8, Rule 9 has to provide cogent reasons for permission to file additional written statement. He cannot claim it as a matter of right. And the Court, in exercise of its discretion, may or may not grant leave to present a fresh pleading. On the other hand, sub­ rule (2) of Rule 4 of Order 22 is not a rule of pleading. It has nothing to do with Order 6, Rule 5 or O.5, R.7 and is independent of O.8, R.9. It allows a person made a party under O.22, R. 4, to make "any defence", the only limitation being that the defence so made must be "appropriate to his character as legal representative of the deceased defendant."
Delhi District Court Cites 4 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Niranjan Sahu vs Gauri Sahu And Others on 15 February, 2016

12. On a bare perusal of the decision in the case of Sumtibai and others (supra), it is evident that the same does not run contrary to the earlier decisions of the apex Court. The apex Court in the said case held that in fact no useful purpose would be served by merely allowing the legal representatives to be impleaded but not allowing them to file an additional written statement.
Orissa High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 2 - A K Rath - Full Document

Anilkumar Shrivallabh Sikchi vs Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited ... on 31 January, 2017

In the judgment given in the case of Sumatibai and others (supra), the clause "make any defence appropriate to his character as legal representative of the deceased defendant" did not fell for consideration of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Similarly, the judgment given in the case of Saiyed Sirajul Hasan is not of any assistance to the defendant Nos. 2, 2A, 2B, 2C, 2(C-1) as in this judgment it is laid down that the legal representative can and may as a matter of right raise any defence which is appropriate to his character as legal representative of the deceased defendant.
Bombay High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 0 - Z A Haq - Full Document

Raghubir Singh vs Pradeep Kumar And Others on 21 June, 2016

8. Significantly, provisions of Order 6 Rule 17 and Order 22 Rule 4 of the Civil Procedure Code are independent to each other and operate in a totally different fact situation. To this extent, Mr. Desh Raj Thakur, learned counsel for the petitioner is right in drawing attention of this Court to the decision rendered by the apex Court in Abdul Razak (dead) through LRs and others vs. Mangesh Rajaram Wagle and others, (2010) 2 SCC 432 and Delhi High Court in Sayed Sirajul Hasan vs. Sh. Syed Murtaza Ali Khan, ILR (1992) 1 Delhi 401.
Himachal Pradesh High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 0 - S Karol - Full Document

Date Of Decision :17.3.2025 vs Mati Ram @ Moti Ram (Deceased) Through ... on 17 March, 2025

15. Another judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioners has been passed by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the matter of Saiyed Sirajul Hasan vs. Murtaza Ali Khan Bahadur & others, AIR 1992 Delhi 162. The same again will not serve the purpose of the petitioners for the reason that again the absolute right of legal representatives of deceased defendant to file written statement after impleadment in the suit has not been held to exist.
Himachal Pradesh High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Commissioner Of Wealth-Tax vs Begam Brigees Zahoor Qasim And Ors. on 12 October, 2000

3. In other references, except that the figure of wealth included is different, essentially the issues are the same. Taking note of Suit No. 219 of 1972 titled Saiyid Sirajul Hasan v. Syed Murtaza Ali Khan and Ors. filed in this court, as a protective measure the concerned sum was included while computing net wealth for the concerned assessment year 1974-75 under Section 16(3) of the Act. Such inclusion was challenged by the concerned assesseds before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner of Wealth-tax ("the AAC"). The said authority was of the view that though protective inclusion can be made, it is permissible only when a substantive assessment is made in the case of another person. As there was no material to show that such inclusion was made on substantive basis in the hands of any other person, the inclusion on protective basis was upset by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. The Revenue carried the matter in appeals before the Tribunal which in turn upheld the views of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. On being moved, the above references have been made.
Delhi High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 0 - A Pasayat - Full Document
1