Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 8 of 8 (1.16 seconds)
Documents citing Kunhikayyumma And Anr. vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 12 September, 1983

Mohanraj And Minor Kalimuthu @ Prabhu ... vs Sri Vanabadrakaliamman Temple By Its ... on 1 December, 2006

A perusal of the judgment shows that the decision of the Kerala High Court (Kunhikayyumma v. Union of India), was referred to, to come to the conclusion that in a case where an application is filed to bring on record the legal representatives, the prayer to set aside the abatement should be taken as implicit in the prayer for substitution. In the circumstances, learned senior counsel submitted that the view of the Court below is too hypertechnical and it ought to have seen that given the cause of bringing on record the legal representatives, the proper course for the Court would be to allow the petitioners as the legal representatives to prosecute further the I.A. preferred by the deceased.
Madras High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 0 - C Venkataraman - Full Document

Mohanraj vs Sri Vanabadrakaliamman Temple on 1 December, 2006

A perusal of the judgment shows that the decision of the Kerala High Court reported in AIR 1984 Kerala 184 (KUNHIKAYYUMMA Vs. UNION OF INDIA), was referred to, to come to the conclusion that in a case where an application is filed to bring on record the legal representatives, the prayer to set aside the abatement should be taken as implicit in the prayer for substitution. In the circumstances, learned senior counsel submitted that the view of the Court below is too hypertechnical and it ought to have seen that given the cause of bringing on record the legal representatives, the proper course for the Court would be to allow the petitioners as the legal representatives to prosecute further the I.A. preferred by the deceased.
Madras High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 0 - C Venkataraman - Full Document

Bimal Krishna Nath vs Sm. Minati Sen And Ors. on 26 April, 1993

15. The next case relied on by Mr. Ghosal is Kunhikayyumma and Anr. v. Union of India and Ors., . The Court while examining the scope of Order 22 Rules 4 and 9(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 observed that provisions of Order 22 which are only procedural ought not to be subjected to narrow construction and hyper technical contentions having the effect of deflecting the court of justice. If, from facts and circumstances of the case sufficient cause for the delay in seeking substitution of the legal representatives of the deceased parties was obvious the court would be justified in granting the relief ignoring the fact that the affidavit neither mentioned the cause nor prayed for setting aside the abatement. The prayer should be treated as being implicit in the application for impleading the legal representatives. It should also be borne in the mind for the observations made by his lordship that the rules of procedure are only hand maids of justice.
Calcutta High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Kanwal Sarup Khurana vs Kunwar Harendra Pratap Sahi And 6 Others on 20 February, 2013

To the same effect are the decisions in Smt. Shakuntala Devi Vs. Banwari Lal, AIR 1977 All 551 (paras 4 and 5); Kulsoomun Nissa Vs. Noor Mohamad, AIR 1936 All 666; Kunhikayyumma Vs. Union of India, AIR 1984 Karela 184; Firm Gabrulal Vs. Court of Wards, AIR 1933 Nagpur 85; and recently in Smt. Kamlesh Vs. Tekchand and others, AIR 2003 All 299.
Allahabad High Court Cites 31 - Cited by 0 - S Agarwal - Full Document

Kishalaya Banerjee And Others vs Smt.Kamla Devi Budhia Dharamshala ... on 5 September, 2012

To the same effect is the decision in Smt. Shakuntala Devi Vs. Banwari Lal, AIR 1977 All 551 (paras 4 and 5); Kulsoomun Nissa Vs. Noor Mohamad, AIR 1936 All 666; Kunhikayyumma Vs. Union of India, AIR 1984 Karela 184; Firm Gabrulal Vs. Court of Wards, AIR 1933 Nagpur 85; and recently in Smt. Kamlesh Vs. Tekchand and others, AIR 2003 All 299.
Allahabad High Court Cites 22 - Cited by 0 - S Agarwal - Full Document

Sankaran (Died) Velippara vs Devaki Amma (Died) on 11 January, 2007

In Kunhikayyumma and another v. Union of India and others (AIR 1984 KERALA 184), it was held that if from the facts and circumstances of the case sufficient cause for the delay in seeking substitution of the legal representatives of the deceased party was obvious the Court would be justified in granting the relief ignoring the fact that the affidavit neither mentioned the cause nor prayed for setting aside the abatement.
Kerala High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 0 - K T Sankaran - Full Document

John Simon vs T.H. Mohammed Kunju on 9 February, 2007

260); Thankamma v. Vaikom Town Juma Masjid Mahal Sangham (1987 (2) KLT 780); Shaji Varghese v. Cherian (1993 (1) KLT 133); New Model Bank Ltd. (in liquidation) v. P.A.Thomas (1959 KLT 1237) and Kunhikayyumma and another v. Union of India and others (AIR 1984 Kerala 184)). The appellant has filed the application under rule 9 of Order IX of the Code of Civil Procedure. The appellant was the defendant in the suit. Evidently, Rule 9 of Order IX does not apply. Only Rule 13 of Order IX applies. Simply because a wrong provision of law was quoted, the court below was not justified in dismissing the application on that ground.
Kerala High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 1 - Full Document
1