Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 28 (0.71 seconds)
Documents citing Venukuri Krishna Reddi And Anr. vs Kota Ramireddi And Ors. on 23 November, 1953

Sou Lankabai Krishna Bibe And Ors vs Shri Macchindra Krushna Atole And Ors on 8 April, 2024

30 The next decision is of Madras High Court in Venukuri Krishna Reddi and Anr. vs. Kota Ramireddi and Ors., (supra). The issue which arose before the High Court was whether the dismissal of the suit by the lower appellate Court not only against those Defendant who had preferred the appeal but even against those who have not was proper and legal. The Madras High Court considered the provisions of Order 41 Rule 33 of CPC and held that the Court might exercise power under that Rule in the interest of justice but subject to exceptions. On such exceptions the Court will exercise sound discretion in refusing to grant relief to one who has submitted to the decree. The said decision does not lay down as an absolute proposition of law that provisions of Order 41 Rule 33 of CPC cannot be invoked for the purpose of doing complete justice between the parties apart from the fact that the decision is not binding upon this Court and only has a persuasive value.
Bombay High Court Cites 20 - Cited by 0 - S U Deshmukh - Full Document

Abhishek Jain vs Chhedi Lal And Ors. on 23 September, 2019

In Harihar Prasad Singh and Ors. v. Balmiki Prasad Singh and Ors., [1975] 2 SCR 932, the following statement of law made by Venkatarama Aiyar, J. (as His Lordship then was) in the Division Bench decision in Krishna Reddy v. Ramireddi, AIR 1954 Mad 848 was cited with approval which clearly brings out the wide scope of power contained in Rule 33 and the illustration appended thereto, as also the limitations on such power:
Allahabad High Court Cites 28 - Cited by 0 - A Kumar - Full Document

The New India Assurane Co. Ltd. Thru ... vs Smt. Neelam Jaiswal & 5 Ors. on 28 January, 2020

In Harihar Prasad Singh v. Balmiki Prasad Singh [(1975) 1 SCC 212] the following statement of law made by Venkatarama Aiyar, J. (as His Lordship then was) in the Division Bench decision in Venukuri Krishna Reddi v. Kota Ramireddi [AIR 1954 Mad 848 : (1954) 2 MLJ 559] was cited with approval which clearly brings out the wide scope of power contained in Rule 33 and the Illustration appended thereto, as also the limitations on such power: (SCC p. 236, para 36) "Though Order 41 Rule 33 confers wide and unlimited jurisdiction on courts to pass a decree in favour of a party who has not preferred any appeal, there are, however, certain well-defined principles in accordance with which that jurisdiction should be exercised. Normally, a party who is aggrieved by a decree should, if he seeks to escape from its operation, appeal against it within the time allowed after complying with the requirements of law. Where he fails to do so, no relief should ordinarily be given to him under Order 41 Rule 33.
Allahabad High Court Cites 16 - Cited by 3 - J Singh - Full Document

New India Assurance Co. Ltd., vs Basappa S/O Fakkirappa Balesur on 25 August, 2020

Balmiki Prasad Singh [(1975) 1 SCC 212] the following statement of law mad e by Venkatarama Aiyar, J. (as His Lordship then was) in the Division Bench decision in Venukuri Krishna Reddi v. Kota Ramireddi [AIR 1954 Mad 848 : (1954) 2 MLJ 559] was cited with approval which clearly b rings out the wide scope of power contained in Rule 33 and the Illustration appended thereto, as also the limitations on such power: (SCC p. 236, para 36) "Though Order 41 Rule 33 confers wide and unlimited jurisdiction on courts to p ass a decree in favour of a p arty who has not p referred any appeal, there are, however, certain well-defined p rinciples in accordance with which that jurisdiction should be exercised. Normally, a p arty who is aggrieved by a decree should, if he seeks to escap e from its op eration, app eal against it within the time allowed after complying with the requirements of law. Where he fails to do so, no relief should ordinarily be given to him und er Order 41 Rule 33.
Karnataka High Court Cites 16 - Cited by 1 - M Nagaprasanna - Full Document

Ramesh S/O Shivappa Revadigar And Ors vs The Spl Land Acquisition Officer .And ... on 24 April, 2020

In Harihar Prasad Singh v. Balmiki Prasad Singh [(1975) 1 SCC 212] the following statement of law made by Venkatarama Aiyar, J. (as His Lordship then was) in the Division Bench decision in Venukuri Krishna Reddi v. Kota Ramireddi [AIR 1954 Mad 848 : (1954) 2 MLJ 559] was cited with approval which clearly brings out the wide scope of power contained in Rule 33 and the Illustration appended thereto, as also the limitations on such power: (SCC p. 236, para 36) "Though Order 41 Rule 33 confers wide and unlimited jurisdiction on courts to pass a decree in favour of a party who has not preferred any appeal, there are, however, certain well-defined principles in accordance with which that jurisdiction should be exercised. Normally, a party who is aggrieved by a 64 decree should, if he seeks to escape from its operation, appeal against it within the time allowed after complying with the requirements of law. Where he fails to do so, no relief should ordinarily be given to him under Order 41 Rule 33.
Karnataka High Court Cites 26 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Son Tshering Lepcha vs Sangay Tshering Lepcha on 12 December, 2014

In Harihar Prasad Singh & Ors. v. Balmiki Prasad Singh & Ors., (1975) 1 SCC 212, the following statement of law made by Venkatarama Aiyar, J. (as his Lordship then was) in the Division Bench decision in Krishna Reddy v. Ramireddi, AIR 1954 Madras 848 was cited with approval which clearly brings out the wide scope of power contained in Rule 33 and the illustration appended thereto, as also the limitations on such power:
Sikkim High Court Cites 13 - Cited by 0 - S P Wangdi - Full Document

State Of Orissa And Ors. And Udyog Silpa ... vs Punjab National Bank And Ors. on 27 April, 1988

In Venukuri Krishna Reddi v. Kota Ramireddi, AIR 1954 Mad 848. Rajamannar C. J. and Venkatarama Aiyar J. while holding that though Order 41, Rule 33, confers wide and unlimited jurisdiction on courts to pass a decree in favour of a party who has not preferred any appeal, there are, however, certain well-defined principles in accordance with which that jurisdiction should be exercised, indicated the cases in which courts could interfere under Order 41, Rule 33, Civil Procedure Code, by observing, at page 852, as follows:
Orissa High Court Cites 13 - Cited by 0 - D P Mohapatra - Full Document

Ravipudi Abbayya vs State Of Andhra Pradesh Represented By ... on 4 November, 1958

In this connection the learned Government Pleader relied on the decision reported in Krishna Reddi v. Ramireddi, in support of the proposition that the appellate Court has power to pass a decree in favour of the party even though he had not filed an appeal or a cross-appeal. While making that general observation, their Lordships of the Madras High Court immediately thereafter toot care to point out that 110 hard and last rule could be laid down, and that however extensive this power may be, one principle can be taken to be well established, viz. that when a party having right to appeal fails to do so, the relief should ordinarily be refused him under Order 41, Rule 33.
Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) Cites 19 - Cited by 12 - Full Document
1   2 3 Next