Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 8 of 8 (0.24 seconds)
Komalchand Beniprasad vs Pooranchand Moolchand on 25 August, 1969 cites

Pooranchand Mulchand Jain vs Komalchand Beniprasad Jain on 11 July, 1961

However, when the case was heard by the Additional District Judge on remand, it was contended that the application could not be enquired into on the ground that it was barred by res judicata in view of the Order of the High Court dated 21-4-1960 passed in Letters Patent Appeal No. 13 of 1960. This objection was overruled by the trial Court by its order dated 21-2-1964. It held that in view of the Order of the Division Bench in Civil Revn. No. 39 of 1961 reported in Pooranchand v. Komalchand, AIR 1962 Madh Pra 64 no appeal lay from an order dismissing in default an application for restoration of a suit dismissed for default and that consequently the order of the High Court in Letters Patent Appeal No. 13 of 1960 could be of no avail to the defendant-applicant, especially when there was an express order of the High Court in Civil Revision No, 39 of 1961 directing it to enquire into the application dated 22-4-1959 for restoration of the suit dismissed for default. Ultimately, on 31-3-1964, the trial Court allowed the application dated 22-4-1959 and restored the suit to file holding, inter alia, that there was sufficient cause for the plaintiff-non-applicant's non-appearance in court on 22-4-1959 on which date his suit had been dismissed for default of his appearance.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 7 - Full Document

Abdul Majid vs Jawahir Lal on 5 August, 1910

6. The learned counsel also relied on the decision in Abdul Majid v. Jawahir Lal, ILR 36 All 350 = (AIR 1914 PC 66) but that was a case where an appeal had been dismissed for default and the Division Bench itself has pointed out in Kikabhai's case, ILR (1940) Nag 496 = (AIR 1937 Nag 381) (supra) that the rule does not apply to cases where the appellate Court did not deal with the merits of the case as in the case of simply dismissing the appeal for default.
Allahabad High Court Cites 13 - Cited by 46 - Full Document

Collector Of Customs, Calcutta vs East India Commercial Co. Ltd on 30 April, 1962

7. It is now well settled that if once an order of an original authority is taken up in appeal to the appellate authority it is the order of the appellate authority which is the operative order after the appeal is disposed of, whether the appeal reverses, modifies or confirms the order of the original authority by dismissing the appeal: see Collector of Customs, Calcutta v. East India Commercial Co. Ltd. Calcutta, AIR 1963 SC 1124. And, in our opinion, there is no difference whether the appeal is dismissed after notice or without notice, provided always that the dismissal is on merits.
Supreme Court of India Cites 9 - Cited by 124 - K N Wanchoo - Full Document

Bhagubhai Dullabhabhai Bhandari vs The District Magistrate, Thana& ... on 8 May, 1956

Indeed, in Bhagubhai Dullabhabhai Bhandari v. The District Magistrate, Thana, 1956 SCR 533 = (AIR 1956 SC 585) where the Supreme Court had refused to grant special leave to appeal to a petitioner-accused, it was held that he could not re-agitate the matter under Article 32 of the Constitution for the reason that the petitioner's conviction stood 'confirmed' as a result of the refusal by the Supreme Court to grant him special leave to appeal from the judgment of the High Court.
Supreme Court of India Cites 14 - Cited by 27 - B P Sinha - Full Document

Doma Choudhary And Ors. vs Ram Naresh Lal And Ors. on 7 November, 1958

"Order 9, Rule 9 cannot, therefore, be invoked for setting aside the dismissal in default of an application for restoration of a suit under that Rule. On the same principle an order dismissing in default an application for restoration of a suit under Order 9, Rule 9 is not open to appeal under Order 43 Rule 1(c). The dismissal of such an application for default is in the exercise of the inherent powers of the Court. That being so, the dismissal can be set aside by the exercise of the same inherent powers. It seems to us unnecessary to examine some decisions in which it has been held that an appeal lies under Order 43 Rule 1(c) from an order rejecting for default an application under Rule 9, (see Doma Choudhary v. Ram Naresh Lal, AIR 1959 Pat 121 and cases noted in Chituley's Civil Procedure Code, Volume II, under note (2) to Order 9 (General.)) These decisions and others making Order 9, Rule 9 applicable for setting aside an order rejecting for default an application for restoration of a suit under Order 9, 11, 9 C. P. C. overlook the position that when an appeal is preferred against an order rejecting for default an application under Rule 9 for the restoration of a suit the appeal is not against the order to set aside the dismissal or a suit within the meaning of Order 43 Rule 1 (c), that Section 141 deals with procedure alone and not with any substantive rights, and that the remedy under Order 9, Rule 9 Civil Procedure Code is not a matter of procedure but is a substantive right."
Patna High Court Cites 22 - Cited by 20 - V Ramaswami - Full Document

Paidipati Kamma Narasayya vs D. Thimmappa And Anr. on 29 January, 1943

Indeed there are, on the other hand, authorities for the proposition that an appeal lies under Rule 1(c) or (d) of Order XLIII from an order rejecting for default an application under rule 9 or Rule 13 of Order 9 respectively: see Narasayya v. Thimmappa, AIR 1943 Mad 584; Madan Lal Agrawalla v. Tripura Modern Bank Ltd., AIR 1954 Assam 1 (FB) and AIR 1959 Pat 121 (FB). In the words of the Patna Full Bench,--
Madras High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 3 - Full Document
1