Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 3 of 3 (2.72 seconds)
Documents citing Prithyirajsinhji Mansinghji vs Bai Shivprabha Kumari And Anr. on 11 August, 1956

Kadia Harilal Purshottam vs Kadia Lilavati Gokaldas on 1 February, 1961

The expression "order" has been defined in Section 2, subsection (14) to mean the formal expression of any decision of a Civil Court which is not a decree. He argues that the order passed by the District Judge, Halar, awarding permanent alimony does not amount to a decree within the meaning of Section 2, Sub-section (2) of the Civil Procedure Code.' He says that this order was passed on an application that was made after the suit for restitution of conjugal rights was disposed of. He submits that the order made is an order within the meaning of Section 2, Sub-section (14), and as no appeal is provided from such an order under the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, no appeal lies therefrom and that the appeal that is filed is incompetent in law. He relies upon a decision of a single Judge of the Bombay High Court reported in Prithyirajsinghji Mansinghji v. Bai Shivprabha Kumari, 62 Bom LR 47: (AIR 1960 Bom 315). In that case it was held that the words "may be appealed from under any law for the time being in force" refer to the appeals provided for under the Code of Civil Procedure. It was there held that Section 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, did not provide any appeal against every order made by a Court In proceedings under the Act, 'but against only Such of them as fall within the definition of the term 'decree' as defined in Section 2, Sub-section (2) of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, or with legard to which an appeal is provided under the Code. In that case, the contention that the words "under any law for the time being in force" were applicable merely to the procedure in cases where an appeal lay, was negatived.
Gujarat High Court Cites 20 - Cited by 30 - Full Document

Smt. Snehalata Dansena vs Jagadish Dansana on 16 October, 1963

On behalf of the respondent this section is construed to mean that no right of appeal has been conferred under Section 28 of the Act. Indisputably the order, under challenge, is an order and not a decree. Section 104(1), C. P. C. lays down that an appeal shall lie from the following orders, and save as otherwise expressly provided in the body of this Code or by any law for the time being in force, from no other orders. Order 43, Rule 1, C. P. C. enumerates various orders from which an appeal shall lie. The argument runs that as Section 104 and Order 43, Rule 1, C. P. C. make no provision for appeal against orders of the court in any proceeding under the Act, ao appeal lies from this order. Reliance is placed in support of this construction on Saraswathi v. Krishna Murthy, AIR 1960 Andh Pra 30; Prithyiraj-singh Mansinghji v. Bai Shivprava Kumari, AIR 3960 Bom 315 and Gopendra Nath v. Sm. Prativa Rani, AIR 1962 Cal 455. These decisions support fee preliminary objections.
Orissa High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 7 - Full Document
1