Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 10 (0.74 seconds)
Osman Mullick And Ors. vs Md. Alauddin And Ors. on 10 May, 1989 cites

Fathima Automobiles vs P.K.P. Nair And Anr. on 11 September, 1984

17. It is to be noted that the purport of Section 9 of the Code is to confer an all embracing jurisdiction onto the civil' Court except to the extent as excluded by an express provision or by 'clear intendment' arising from such law. On a perusal of Rules 97 to 103, can it be said that there is an express provision or a 'clear intendment' to oust the jurisdiction of the civil Court in a suit? In my view, the answer is in the negative. The rules under Order 21 as noted above provide for determination or adjudication of a right and in the absence of which question of a suit being barred does not and cannot arise. Stretching of the language of the rule in concluding an ouster is not permissible, neither any outside aid for the purpose of implying an ouster can be had to bring home the point in issue. I however, respectfully record my concurrence with the view expressed by this Court in D, P. Set's case (Supra) but the applicability of the principles laid down in that decision is restricted to the effect that in the event the Executing Court had already investigated the matter, question of a further suit would not arise.
Madras High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 7 - Full Document

Nusserwanji E. Poonegar And Ors. vs Shirinbai F. Bhesania And Ors. on 12 January, 1984

10. Further reliance was placed on the decision of the Bombay High Court, in the case of Nusserwanji E. Pwooneir and Ors. v. Mrs. Shiriribai F. Bhesania and Ors. wherein the learned Single Judge of the Bombay High Court summarised the legal position to the effect that under Rule 101 read with Rule 99 of Order 21 of the Code, all questions including the question of tenancy under the Bombay Rent Act can be decided by the Executing Court subject, however, to the condition as mentioned in Rule 101 itself that those questions must arise between the parties to a proceeding on the application and must be relevant to the adjudication of the application. The learned Judge further proceeded on to observe that if on the determination of such question or questions, it becomes necessary to order that possession of immovable property should be given from the landlord to the tenant, the Executing Court has the jurisdiction to pass that order under Rule 100(a) and the bar contained in Section 41(2) of the Presidency Small Causes Courts Act or the bar) implied by Section 28 of the Bombay Rent Act does not apply to the field covered by Rule 101 of Order 21.
Bombay High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 10 - Full Document
1