Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 7 of 7 (0.48 seconds)
Documents citing Nishabar Singh vs Local Gurdwara Committee Manji Sahib, ... on 16 April, 1986

Dipak Saha vs Smt. Bakul Bala Saha And Ors. on 16 March, 2006

21. Seeking the amendment aforesaid, Mr. Chowdhury, learned Counsel for the petitioner has forcefully contended that though the substitution of defendant No. 2 by his legal representatives i.e. his wife, minor sons and daughters who are to be represented by their mother, was principally allowed by the trial Court at its initial stage, as noticed above, the cause title of the plaint was not corrected incorporating the names of the legal representatives and also showing that the minors so mentioned above were represented by their mother, the wife of defendant No. 2, which was being purely the duty of the office. Since the decree of the trial Court has been merged with the decree of the final appellate Court i.e. in the Second Appeals before this Court, the judgment and decree need to be corrected by the Hon'ble High Court for which this application has been made to cause the appropriate correction. It is also contended that initially the application for amendment of such nature was filed before the trial Court i.e. Civil Judge, Senior Division inadvertently and by committing a bona fide mistake inasmuch as since the judgment and decree have already been merged with the appellate Court's judgment and decree passed by this Court in Second Appeals, the amendment petition ought to have been filed before this High Court. Nevertheless, looking into such defect, being apparent on the face of the record, the trial Court ought not to have entertained the application for amendment so preferred by the petitioner as the trial Court has no jurisdiction to hear and decide such type of petition for correction of judgment which was already merged with the appellate Court's judgment. Such fact situation was clear from his order dated 7-9-2002 itself where the Court citing the authorities of the Apex Court as well as Punjab & Haryana High Court reported in AIR 2001 SC 2316 K. Raja Mouli v. A.V.K.N. Swami and in AIR 1986 Punjab & Haryana 402 Nishabar Singh v. Local Gurdwara Committee, Manjisahib, Karnel and Anr., held that since the decree of the trial Court was merged with the appellate decree, the trial Court was left without any jurisdiction to amend the decree.
Gauhati High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 0 - A H Saikia - Full Document

Ravi Kant Kapur vs Prem Parkash Talwar And Ors. on 1 March, 1995

In Nishabar Singh v. Local Gurdwara Committee Manji Sahib, AIR 1986 Punjab & Haryana 402, this Court followed the law laid down by the Privy Council and the Supreme Court and observed that where the property was bequeathed to two religious institutions equally by will and Suit for possession was brought only by one institution with other institution being joined as defendant, the Court could transpose the defendant-institution as plaintiff and grant decree in its favour to avoid multiplicity of proceedings and to do complete justice between the parties. 19. A close scrutiny of the order passed by the learned Sub Judge in the light of the principle laid down by the Privy Council and the Supreme Court as well as by this Court clearly shows that the learned trial Court has not committed any jurisdictional error in accepting the application filed by defendant Nos. 3 and 4. The learned trial Judge has taken note of the argument advanced on behalf of defendant Nos. l and 2 about the lack of cause of action in favour of the original plaintiffs and observed that the issue regarding locus standi of plaintiffs was yet to be established and the issue regarding the validity of the resolution passed in the meeting held on 12.8.1989 was also required to be decided. It held that since defendant Nos. 3 and 4 had adopted the pleadings of the plaintiffs and, therefore, they could legitimately be added as plaintiffs. The learned trial Judge was conscious of the principle of law that if the transposition has the effect of taking away of valuable right, the same ought not to be allowed. The learned Sub Judge further held that by adding of defendants as plaintiffs, cause of action is not going to change and the defendant Nos. l and 2 were not going to lose any valuable right. The trial Court further observed that effect of the judgment rendered in the previous suits decided by the City Civil Court, Bombay, and the suit pending before the Bombay High Court could be considered during the trial and that the other defendants were entitled to take these objections in their written statement, which they were yet to file.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Saudagar Singh vs Amir Singh & Ors on 20 March, 2009

3. Dilating his arguments that the Court lacked inherent jurisdiction to pass an order, in view of the decision having obtained finality only before the High Court and therefore, it was High Court which could have entertained the petition and not the trial Court. He refers to decisions of this Court in Nishabar Singh Vs. Local Gurdwara Committee Manji Sahib, Karnal and another AIR 1986 P&H 402 and Kaka Singh and others Vs. Parkash Chand and others 1980 PLJ 600.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 1 - K Kannan - Full Document

Nirmal Singh And Another vs Pargan And Others on 10 November, 2009

The lower appellate Court failed to deal with the reason given by the trial court that the defendants interpolated the register of the scribe. Burden to prove cancellation or RSA No.213 of 1987 (O&M) 7 destruction of Will with a view to cancel the same was on the defendants and no inference could be drawn to that effect. Father of the plaintiff Ajit Singh was living in the village and testator had cordial relations with him and there could be no occasion for change of mind to cancel the Will. Reliance has also been placed on judgment of the Hon'be Supreme Court in Durga Parshad v. Debi Charan and others, AIR 1979 SC 145 and judgment of this Court in Nishabar Singh v. Local Gurdwara Committee Manji Sahib, Karnal and another, AIR 1986 Punjab and Haryana 402 to submit that if due execution of the Will was proved, presumption of cancellation of Will could be rebutted by slightest possible evidence direct or circumstantial.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 1 - Cited by 0 - A K Goel - Full Document

Ganesh Dutta Paraha vs Shri Radha Krishnaji Maharaj (The ... on 6 February, 2026

6 . Reliance was placed on Judgement of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in case of Nishabar Singh v. Local Gurdwara Committee Manji Sahib, Karnal, 1986 SCC OnLine P&H 217, AIR 1986 P&H 402 to contend that defendant No.1 has common interest with the plaintiffs. However, this alone cannot be a relevant factor to order transposition and even in the case decided by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana relied by the counsel for petitioner, defendant No.1 in that case was held entitled to decree and hence he was transposed as plaintiff to do complete justice between the parties and the defendant himself had prayed that he be transposed as plaintiff.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Om Parkash And Anr. vs Parshotam Lal And Ors. on 28 March, 2005

The afore-mentioned principle of joining the proforma defendant as co-plaintiff has been extended to even ordinary defendant to become a co-plaintiff by the Supreme Court in the case of R.S. Maddanapa v. Chandramma, which has been followed by this Court in the case of Nishabar Singh v. Local Gurdwara Committee Manji Sahib, . In that case the property was bequeathed to two religious institutions equally by Will. One of the institutions had filed suit for possession of its share and the other institution was joined as a defendant. It was held that the Courts can always transpose defendant as a plaintiff and could grant decree in its favour to avoid multiplicity of litigation and to do complete justice between the parties.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 1 - Full Document
1