Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 19 (1.00 seconds)
Documents citing Firdous Omer (D) By Lrs. & Ors vs Bankim Chandra Daw (D) By Lrs.& Ors on 28 July, 2006

Smt. Lakshmi Rani @ Lakshmibala Mondal & ... vs Smt. Kamala Bala @ Amalabala Mondal & Ors on 16 May, 2008

Mr. Sen, appearing as learned Counsel for the respondents, in response to this, submitted that the dismissal of the suit for non-prosecution or for non- appearance of the plaintiff is not a decree as specified by Section 2(2) of the C.P.Code. He referred to the decision in the case Firdous Omer (dead) LRS. & Ors. vs. Bankim Chandra Daw (dead) By Lrs., reported in (2006) 6 SCC 569. The contention raised by Mr. Sahoo as referred to earlier does not seem to have been a matter for consideration in this case.
Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side) Cites 17 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Panchi Bai vs Sunita Bai &Ors; on 10 March, 2017

In Firdous Omer Vs. Bankim Chandra Dew [(2006)6 SCC 569] the Apex Court has held that every court has the power of restoring a suit so as to enable the parties to contest the same on 14 merits. The court further observed that it was even possible to argue, that the power to dismiss a suit for default/ non prosecution, carries with it the implied power to restore that suit. The Apex Court reiterated the oft quoted dictum that the law of procedure is the handmaid of justice. Hence it was held by the Apex Court that the position adopted by the Calcutta High Court that on the expiry of 30 days from the date of dismissal of a suit for default and on the order of dismissal being drawn up, completed and filed, the court becomes functus officio, was not sustainable.
Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur Cites 19 - Cited by 0 - A Sharma - Full Document

Ebenezer Vasekaran Edward vs Kezia G.Edward on 6 February, 2018

10. In yet another decision in Firdous omer (dead) by LRs. and others Vs. Bankim Chandra Daw (dead) by LRs and others, reported in (2006) 6 SCC 569, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that a dismissal of the suit for non prosecution or for non appearance of the plaintiff is not a decree as specified by Section 2(2) of C.P.C. itself and it is not appealable as a decree.
Madras High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - J N Banu - Full Document

Smt. Sarita Devi vs Shri Ashok Kumar Singh on 5 February, 2018

11. Order IX Rule 3 C.P.C. provides, if neither party appears when suit is called for hearing, Court may make an order that suit be dismissed. Such a dismissal of suit is for absence of parties, i.e., for non prosecution. Such an order passed under Order IX Rule 3, has been held not to be a 'decree' as specified by Section 2(2) C.P.C. in Firdous Omer (D) by LRs. and Ors. vs. Bankim Chandra Daw (D) by LRs. and Ors. (2006) 6 SCC 569.
Allahabad High Court Cites 22 - Cited by 16 - Full Document

Unknown vs Abdul Haque Through His L.Rs on 20 June, 2024

16. After prolong hearing of both the sides and after going through the relevant case record and the principles of law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the aforenoted cases it appears to this Court that all though, Learned counsel for the appellants was present on that date but no step was taken inspite of providing opportunity to the party by the Learned Trial Court below and hence, the suit was dismissed by the Learned Trial Court. So, for the dismissal of the suit for non- prosecution, in my considered view, there is no scope to entertain this appeal filed under Section 96 of CPC by the appellants.
Tripura High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Divya Jalan vs Soorajmull Nagarmull And Ors on 5 December, 2025

In support of such contentions, reliance is placed on the decisions in Ambika Charan Guha vs. Tarini Charan 4 2025:CHC-OS:242 Chanda and others (1913) SCC OnLine Cal 138; Vyrathammal vs. Somasundaram Pillai and Ors. (1958) SCC OnLine Mad 293; Firdous Omer & Ors. vs. Bankim Chandra Daw (2006) 6 SCC 569; S.P. Misra v. Mohd. Laiquddin Khan, (2019) 10 SCC 329; Annapurna B. Uppin v. Malsiddappa, (2024) 8 SCC 700; Aslam Islam Khan Deshmukh vs. ASAP Fluids P. Ltd. & Anr. (2025) 1 SCC 502; Rahul Verma and Others vs. Rampat Lal Verma and Others (2025) SCC OnLine SC 578.
Calcutta High Court Cites 25 - Cited by 0 - R K Kapur - Full Document
1   2 Next