Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 5 of 5 (0.66 seconds)
Documents citing Kabul Singh And Anr. vs Ram Singh And Ors. on 30 July, 1985

Biswanath Mukherjee & Ors vs Ranjit Kumar Sen & Ors on 9 July, 2020

Regarding the scope and applicability of Section 92 C.P.C over here reliance may be profitably made to a decision reported in AIR 1986 Allahabad 75 delivered in the case of Kabul Singh and another vs. Ram Singh and others, as referred by appellants, wherein it was held that if on an analysis of the averments contained in the plaint, it would transpire that the primary object behind the suit was the vindication of individual, or personal right of the persons, or plaintiffs themselves, an action under Section 92 C.P.C. would not lie.
Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side) Cites 13 - Cited by 1 - S Dasgupta - Full Document

Shri Tukaram S. Dighole vs Shri Manikrao Shivaji Kokate on 25 January, 2008

12. To buttress this argument, the learned advocate has relied on the judgments in Madamanchi Ramappa and Anr. v. Muthaluru Bojjappa ; Secretary, Cantonement Committee, Barrackpore v. Satish Chandra Sen ; Chandulal v. Pushkar Raj and Ors. AIR 1952 NAGPUR 271; Dalim Kumar Sain and Ors. v. Smt.Nandarani Dassi and Anr. ; Kabul Singh and Anr. v. Ram Singh and Ors. ; Thatithoi Chiru and Ors. v. ningampao Kabui and Ors. AIR 1990 GAUHATI 7; Fazal Sheikh and Ors. v. Abdur Rahman Mea and Ors. AIR 1991 ORISSA 17 and Naladhar Mahapatra and Anr. v. Seva Dibya and Ors. , besides other judgments.
Bombay High Court Cites 29 - Cited by 0 - N Mhatre - Full Document

Shri Hamid Ahmed vs Shri Asad Mueed & Ors on 4 September, 2009

The court in Kabul Singh and another (supra) had relied on Swami Parmatmanand Saraswati v. Ramji Tripathi, (1974) 2 SCC 695 and Charan Singh v. Darshan Singh (1975) 1 SCC 298 holding that a suit under Section 92 of Code of Civil Procedure is a suit of a special nature which presupposes the existence of a public trust of religious or charitable nature. The Court is required to ascertain from the plaint the dominant purpose of the suit. If on an analysis of the averments contained the plaint, it transpires that the primary object behind the suit was the vindication of individual or personal rights of third persons or the plaintiffs themselves, an action under this provisions does not lie. It was further held that even if all the other ingredients of a suit under IA 11871/2008 in CS(OS) 326/2005 Page 13 of 30 Section 92 are made out and it is clear that the plaintiffs are suing to vindicate the right of the public but are seeking a declaration of their individual or personal rights or the individual or personal rights of any other person in whom they are interested, then the suit would be outside the scope of Section 92. A suit whose primary object or purpose to remedy the infringement of an individual right or to vindicate a private right does not fall under Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
Delhi High Court Cites 28 - Cited by 5 - A Kumar - Full Document

Maruti Suzuki India Limited vs Presiding Officer on 9 November, 2010

The meaning of the word `Court' was held to be varying with the context with which it is used. Reference in this regard is made to Kabul Singh Vs. Ram Singh and others, 1965 PLR 378. It is noticed that word "Court" is not a term of art with fixed meaning but has a variable import indicative of divergent things. A "Court" is CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.6181 OF 2009 :{ 13 }:
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 25 - Cited by 2 - R Singh - Full Document
1