Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 63 (1.80 seconds)
Documents citing Gurdev Singh & Ors vs Mehnga Ram & Anr on 11 July, 1997

Prabhakar Nene (Dead) Through Legal ... vs Shree Nagpur Geeta Mandir Trust on 20 October, 2004

"........Therefore, when the first Appellate Court did not find the necessity to allow the application, we fail to understand as to how the High Court could, in exercise of its power under Section 115 C.P.C., have interfered with such an order, particularly when the whole appeal is not before the Court. It is only in the circumstances when the Appellate Court requires such evidence to pronounce the judgment the necessity to adduce additional evidence would arise and not in any other circumstances. When the first Appellate Court passed the order on the application filed under Order 41, Rule 27 C.P.C., the whole appeal was before it and if the first Appellate Court is satisfied that additional evidence was not required, we fail to understand as to how the High Court could interfere with such an order under Section 115 C.P.C. In this regard, we may notice the decision of this Court in Gurdev Singh v. Mehgna Ram in which the scope of exercise of power under Section 115 C.P.C. on an order passed in an application filed under Order 41, Rule 27 C.P.C. was considered. When this decision was cited before the High Court, the same was brushed aside by stating that the principle stated therein is not applicable to the facts of this case. We do not think so. The High Court ought not to have interfered with such an order."
Bombay High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 0 - B P Dharmadhikari - Full Document

Shri C.L. Gupta & Anr. vs Shri Kanwar Chand Saboo (Since ... on 11 December, 2009

In this regard, we may notice the decision of this court in Gurdev Singh Vs. Mehnga Ram in which the scope of exercise of power under Section 115 of the CPC on an order passed in an application filed under Order 41Rule 27 of the CPC was considered. When this decision was cited before the High Court, the same was brushed aside by stating that the principles stated therein is not applicable to the facts of the case. We do not think so. The High Court ought not to have interfered with such an order."
Delhi High Court Cites 13 - Cited by 0 - R S Endlaw - Full Document

Smt. Savitri Devi vs Smt. Gayatri Devi & Ors. on 11 December, 2009

In this regard, we may notice the decision of this court in Gurdev Singh Vs. Mehnga Ram in which the scope of exercise of power under Section 115 of the CPC on an order passed in an application filed under Order 41Rule 27 of the CPC was considered. When this decision was cited before the High Court, the same was brushed aside by stating that the principles stated therein is not applicable to the facts of the case. We do not think so. The High Court ought not to have interfered with such an order."
Delhi High Court Cites 13 - Cited by 6 - R S Endlaw - Full Document

A.Aandisamy Chettiar vs A.Subburaj Chettiar on 8 June, 2016

In Gurdev Singh and others Vs. Mehnga Ram and another reported in 1997 (6) SCC 507, the application filed under Order XLI Rule 27 C.P.C before the Appellate Court was allowed and it was challenged by the aggrieved party before the High Court. Since the orders were reversed, the matters were taken up to the Supreme Court. In both the cases, the Supreme Court has held that the High Court should not have interfered with the orders passed by the Appellate Court under Order XLI Rule 27 C.P.C. The petitioner is bound by the order made by the Supreme Court in this case in C.A.No.14055 of 2015, referred supra.
Madras High Court Cites 15 - Cited by 0 - K Kalyanasundaram - Full Document

Shri Rupender Singh vs Shri Randhir Singh (Since Deceased) & ... on 11 December, 2009

In this regard, we may notice the decision of this court in Gurdev Singh Vs. Mehnga Ram in which the scope of exercise of power under Section 115 of the CPC on an order passed in an application filed under Order 41Rule 27 of the CPC was considered. When this decision was cited before the High Court, the same was brushed aside by stating that the principles stated therein is not applicable to the facts of the case. We do not think so. The High Court ought not to have interfered with such an order."
Delhi High Court Cites 13 - Cited by 0 - R S Endlaw - Full Document

Shri Raj Kumar & Ors. vs Shri Ramesh Chander & Ors. on 11 December, 2009

In this regard, we may notice the decision of this court in Gurdev Singh Vs. Mehnga Ram in which the scope of exercise of power under Section 115 of the CPC on an order passed in an application filed under Order 41Rule 27 of the CPC was considered. When this decision was cited before the High Court, the same was brushed aside by stating that the principles stated therein is not applicable to the facts of the case. We do not think so. The High Court ought not to have interfered with such an order."
Delhi High Court Cites 13 - Cited by 2 - R S Endlaw - Full Document

Shri Jainendra Kumar Jain (Since ... vs Hari Nath Rastogi (Since Deceased) ... on 11 December, 2009

In this regard, we may notice the decision of this court in Gurdev Singh Vs. Mehnga Ram in which the scope of exercise of power under Section 115 of the CPC on an order passed in an application filed under Order 41Rule 27 of the CPC was considered. When this decision was cited before the High Court, the same was brushed aside by stating that the principles stated therein is not applicable to the facts of the case. We do not think so. The High Court ought not to have interfered with such an order."
Delhi High Court Cites 13 - Cited by 0 - R S Endlaw - Full Document

Sardar Dastur Schools Trust And Ors. vs Adil Jamshed, Frenchman Since Deceased ... on 13 June, 2002

In Gurdev Singh's case the order allowing the document was passed by the Appellate Court having found the examination of the hand-writing expert to be necessary for pronouncement of the judgment and/or for substantial cause in the matter. That is not the case in hand. No doubt the lower Appellate Court has observed at one place in the impugned order that "I see that the documents are necessary for the just decision in the case." However, apart from making this bare observation, the order does not disclose in what manner the documents are necessary for the just decision of the case. As already observed above, the impugned order has been passed in exercise of powers under Order 41, Rule 27(b), as applicable to the State of Maharashtra and more or less similar to Clause (aa) of the said Rule, as applicable to the area otherwise than the State of Maharashtra.
Bombay High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 1 - R M Khandeparkar - Full Document

Mrs. Sudesh Kumari Alias Mrs. Sarita Vij vs Vijay Modi And Anr. on 25 August, 1998

6. Shri R.C. Setia has also argued that the decision of the Supreme Court in Gurdev Singh and Ors. v. Mehnga Ram and Anr. (Supra) related to the revisional jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 115, Code of Civil Procedure whereas the present revision petition has been filed by the land lady under Section 15(5) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (for short, "the Act"). Sub-section (5) of Section 15 of the said Act reads as under:-
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 9 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 Next