Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 15 (1.05 seconds)
Jayarama Reddy & Anr vs Revenue Divisional Officer & Land ... on 23 March, 1979 cites

Harihar Prasad Singh And Ors vs Balmiki Prasad Singh And Ors on 10 December, 1974

If this is the discernible principle underlying order 22, rules 3 and 4 it has been demonstrably established by interpretation put on these two rules. Original view was that all legal representatives of a deceased plaintiff or defendant must be substituted on the pain of the action abating. With utmost diligence from a multitude some one may escape notice and the consequent hardship in abatement of action led this Court to assert the principle that where some legal representatives are brought on record permitting an inference that the estate is adequately represented, the action would not abate though it would be the duty of the other side to bring those legal representatives on record who are overlooked or missed even at a later date. When the aforementioned two provisions speak of legal representatives it only means that if after diligent and bona fide enquiry the party liable to bring the legal representatives on record ascertains who are the legal representatives of a deceased party and brings them on record within the time limited by law, there is no abatement of the suit or appeal on the ground that some other legal representatives have not been brought on record, because the impleaded legal representatives sufficiently represent the estate of the deceased and the decision would bind not only those impleaded but the entire estate including the interest of those not brought on record. This view has been consistently adopted by this Court in Daya Ram & Ors. v. Shyam Sundari (1) N. K. Mohammad Sulaiman v. N. C. Mohammad Ismail & Ors.;(2) and Harihar Prasad Singh & Ors. v. Balmiki Prasad Singh & Ors.(3) The principle deducible from these decisions is that not only the interest of the deceased was adequately taken care of by those who were on record but they had the opportunity to put forth their case within permissible limits. Neither the case of the deceased nor of his successors in-interest has gone by default. In other words, the principle is that if thd deceased had as a party a right to put forth his case, those likely to be affected by the decision on death of the deceased had the same opportunity to put forth their case and even if from a large number having identical interest some are not brought on record those who are brought on record would adequately take care of their interest and the cause in the absence of some such would not abate. In legal parlance this procedure affords an opportunity of being heard in all its ramification before a decision on the pending list is taken.
Supreme Court of India Cites 18 - Cited by 151 - A Alagiriswami - Full Document

State Of Rajasthan And Ors. vs Raghuraj Singh on 2 November, 1966

Mr. Sen has placed reliance on Punjab State v. Sardar Atma Singh(5) and State of Rajasthan and others v. Raghuraj Singh(6) to show that where an application is not made to bring the legal representative of the deceased respondent on the record of a cross-appeal, that appeal will abate, and it will not be permissible for the appellant to claim the benefit of the fact that the legal representative of the deceased respondent had been brought on the record in the cross-appeal filed by him. I have gone through the cases, but they are clearly distinguishable. The respondent in both cases died during the pendency of the firs appeal, and an objection as to abatement was taken during the course of the hearing, so that there was no question of abandoning the objection in either of these cases and it was permissible to apply to the court for the usual consequences which follow for non-compliance with the provisions of order XXII rules 3 and 4 C.P.C. Those decisions cannot therefore be of any help in a case like this.
Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur Cites 17 - Cited by 5 - Full Document

The State Of Punjab vs Nathu Ram on 1 May, 1961

There were cross appeals arising from the same Award before the High Court. The record does not show that any order was made for 613 consolidating these appeals as is usually done when both the parties to a decree prefer appeals and which are styled as cross-appeals. Both the parties to the original proceeding adopt rival positions in cross appeals. The claimants in their appeal moved the High Court to enhance the compensation from Rs. 12/- per sq. yd. awarded by the Subordinate Judge to a higher amount as claimed by them. The Government in its appeal against the same Award moved the High Court to reduce the compensation from Rs. 12/- to Rs. 2/- per sq. yd. The contest between the parties would be, what in the circumstances of the case should be adequate compensation being the market value of the land acquired by the Government on the relevant date (see Nathuram's case).
Supreme Court of India Cites 1 - Cited by 274 - R Dayal - Full Document

Punjab State vs Sardar Atma Singh S/O S. Nagina Singh on 24 May, 1962

Mr. Sen has placed reliance on Punjab State v. Sardar Atma Singh(5) and State of Rajasthan and others v. Raghuraj Singh(6) to show that where an application is not made to bring the legal representative of the deceased respondent on the record of a cross-appeal, that appeal will abate, and it will not be permissible for the appellant to claim the benefit of the fact that the legal representative of the deceased respondent had been brought on the record in the cross-appeal filed by him. I have gone through the cases, but they are clearly distinguishable. The respondent in both cases died during the pendency of the firs appeal, and an objection as to abatement was taken during the course of the hearing, so that there was no question of abandoning the objection in either of these cases and it was permissible to apply to the court for the usual consequences which follow for non-compliance with the provisions of order XXII rules 3 and 4 C.P.C. Those decisions cannot therefore be of any help in a case like this.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 2 - Full Document

Town Municipal Council, Athani vs Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Hubli ... on 20 March, 1969

Mr. Sen's reference to Maharana Shri Davlatinghji Thjakore Saheb of Limit v. Khachar Hamir Mon,(3) Town Municipal Council, Athani 610 v. Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Hubli and others, (1) Simpson and another v. Crowle and others(2) Chief Justice of Andhra Pradesh and another v. L. V. A. Dikshitula and others(3) and P. Dasa Muni Reddy v. P. Appa Rao(4) is equally futile because they were cases of inherent lack of jurisdiction in the court concerned or raised the question of the bar of limitation.
Supreme Court of India Cites 29 - Cited by 377 - V Bhargava - Full Document

Chief Justice Of A.P. & Anr vs L.V.A. Dikshitulu & Ors on 12 September, 1978

Mr. Sen's reference to Maharana Shri Davlatinghji Thjakore Saheb of Limit v. Khachar Hamir Mon,(3) Town Municipal Council, Athani 610 v. Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Hubli and others, (1) Simpson and another v. Crowle and others(2) Chief Justice of Andhra Pradesh and another v. L. V. A. Dikshitula and others(3) and P. Dasa Muni Reddy v. P. Appa Rao(4) is equally futile because they were cases of inherent lack of jurisdiction in the court concerned or raised the question of the bar of limitation.
Supreme Court of India Cites 45 - Cited by 767 - Full Document

P. Dasa Muni Reddy vs P. Appa Rao on 10 September, 1974

Mr. Sen's reference to Maharana Shri Davlatinghji Thjakore Saheb of Limit v. Khachar Hamir Mon,(3) Town Municipal Council, Athani 610 v. Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Hubli and others, (1) Simpson and another v. Crowle and others(2) Chief Justice of Andhra Pradesh and another v. L. V. A. Dikshitula and others(3) and P. Dasa Muni Reddy v. P. Appa Rao(4) is equally futile because they were cases of inherent lack of jurisdiction in the court concerned or raised the question of the bar of limitation.
Supreme Court of India Cites 7 - Cited by 92 - A N Ray - Full Document

Daya Ram And Others vs Shyam Sundari on 8 September, 1964

If this is the discernible principle underlying order 22, rules 3 and 4 it has been demonstrably established by interpretation put on these two rules. Original view was that all legal representatives of a deceased plaintiff or defendant must be substituted on the pain of the action abating. With utmost diligence from a multitude some one may escape notice and the consequent hardship in abatement of action led this Court to assert the principle that where some legal representatives are brought on record permitting an inference that the estate is adequately represented, the action would not abate though it would be the duty of the other side to bring those legal representatives on record who are overlooked or missed even at a later date. When the aforementioned two provisions speak of legal representatives it only means that if after diligent and bona fide enquiry the party liable to bring the legal representatives on record ascertains who are the legal representatives of a deceased party and brings them on record within the time limited by law, there is no abatement of the suit or appeal on the ground that some other legal representatives have not been brought on record, because the impleaded legal representatives sufficiently represent the estate of the deceased and the decision would bind not only those impleaded but the entire estate including the interest of those not brought on record. This view has been consistently adopted by this Court in Daya Ram & Ors. v. Shyam Sundari (1) N. K. Mohammad Sulaiman v. N. C. Mohammad Ismail & Ors.;(2) and Harihar Prasad Singh & Ors. v. Balmiki Prasad Singh & Ors.(3) The principle deducible from these decisions is that not only the interest of the deceased was adequately taken care of by those who were on record but they had the opportunity to put forth their case within permissible limits. Neither the case of the deceased nor of his successors in-interest has gone by default. In other words, the principle is that if thd deceased had as a party a right to put forth his case, those likely to be affected by the decision on death of the deceased had the same opportunity to put forth their case and even if from a large number having identical interest some are not brought on record those who are brought on record would adequately take care of their interest and the cause in the absence of some such would not abate. In legal parlance this procedure affords an opportunity of being heard in all its ramification before a decision on the pending list is taken.
Supreme Court of India Cites 12 - Cited by 86 - N R Ayyangar - Full Document

N.K. Mohammad Sulaiman vs N. C. Mohammad Ismail And Others on 23 September, 1965

If this is the discernible principle underlying order 22, rules 3 and 4 it has been demonstrably established by interpretation put on these two rules. Original view was that all legal representatives of a deceased plaintiff or defendant must be substituted on the pain of the action abating. With utmost diligence from a multitude some one may escape notice and the consequent hardship in abatement of action led this Court to assert the principle that where some legal representatives are brought on record permitting an inference that the estate is adequately represented, the action would not abate though it would be the duty of the other side to bring those legal representatives on record who are overlooked or missed even at a later date. When the aforementioned two provisions speak of legal representatives it only means that if after diligent and bona fide enquiry the party liable to bring the legal representatives on record ascertains who are the legal representatives of a deceased party and brings them on record within the time limited by law, there is no abatement of the suit or appeal on the ground that some other legal representatives have not been brought on record, because the impleaded legal representatives sufficiently represent the estate of the deceased and the decision would bind not only those impleaded but the entire estate including the interest of those not brought on record. This view has been consistently adopted by this Court in Daya Ram & Ors. v. Shyam Sundari (1) N. K. Mohammad Sulaiman v. N. C. Mohammad Ismail & Ors.;(2) and Harihar Prasad Singh & Ors. v. Balmiki Prasad Singh & Ors.(3) The principle deducible from these decisions is that not only the interest of the deceased was adequately taken care of by those who were on record but they had the opportunity to put forth their case within permissible limits. Neither the case of the deceased nor of his successors in-interest has gone by default. In other words, the principle is that if thd deceased had as a party a right to put forth his case, those likely to be affected by the decision on death of the deceased had the same opportunity to put forth their case and even if from a large number having identical interest some are not brought on record those who are brought on record would adequately take care of their interest and the cause in the absence of some such would not abate. In legal parlance this procedure affords an opportunity of being heard in all its ramification before a decision on the pending list is taken.
Supreme Court of India Cites 12 - Cited by 77 - J C Shah - Full Document

Mahabir Prasad vs Jage Ram & Ors on 6 January, 1971

In Mahabir Prasad v. Jage Ram & Ors.,(1) this Court was called upon to consider whether where a legal representative of a deceased party is on record in another capacity, failure to implead him as legal representative of the deceased party would result in abatement of the action ? In that case Mahabir Prasad, his wife Saroj Devi and his mother Gunwanti Devi filed a suit against Jaga Ram and two others for recovering rent then due in the aggregate amount of Rs. 61,750/-. The suit ended in a decree. The execution of the decree was resisted by the defendants on the plea inter alia that the decree was inexecutable because of the provisions of Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954. This contention found favour with the executing court and the application for execution was dismissed. Mahabir Prasad, one of the decree holders alone appealed against that order and impleaded Gunwati Devi and Saroj Devi as party respondents along with the original judgment- debtors. Saroj Devi died in November 1962 and Mahabir Prasad applied that the name of Saroj Devi be struck of from the array of respondents. The High Court made an order granting the application "subject to all just exceptions". Subsequently the High Court dismissed the appeal holding that because the heirs and legal representatives of Saroj Devi were not brought on record within the period of limitation, the appeal abated in its entirety. This Court, while setting aside the order made by the High Court holding that the appeal abated, observed as under:
Supreme Court of India Cites 5 - Cited by 132 - J C Shah - Full Document
1   2 Next