Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 7 of 7 (0.73 seconds)Section 98 in The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [Entire Act]
Tarit Bhusan Rai And Anr. vs Sri Sri Iswar Sridhar Salagram Shila ... on 16 June, 1941
In Tarit Bhusan v. Sridhar Salagram. AIR 1942 Cal 9 the High Court of Calcutta was considering the provisions of Order IV, Rule 9, and the inhibitions contained therein and had occasion to observe that the provisions imposed a disability upon plaintiff whose suit had been dismissed as he was precluded from bringing a fresh suit in respect of the same cause of action though it did not enact a rule of res judicata in favour of the defendant. The suit was dismissed in default of the next friend of an idol and the Court ultimately found that the person was not having power and that did not bar the subsequent suit.
Section 20 in The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [Entire Act]
Section 99 in The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [Entire Act]
Damu Diga vs Vakrya Nathu on 19 December, 1919
14. Similar such view appears to have been taken by this Court in Damu Diga v. Vakrya, ILR 44 Bom 767 = (AIR 1920 Bom 54), where Justice Crump treated the matter differently with respect to the defendants appearing and non-appearing. When the suit was dismissed in the presence of certain defendants while the plaintiff was absent, the matter was treated as governed by Rule 8. While when the defendant was absent so also the plaintiff, though in the same cause, the matter was treated as one falling as one falling under Rule 3.
Makundi Singh And Anr. vs Parbhu Dayal And Anr. on 26 June, 1925
In Makundi Singh v. Parbhu Dayal the Allahabad High Court alluding to these authorities has taken the view that the word "defendant" in Rule 8 of Order IX was indicative of the particular defendant who was present in the court. The matter of absentee defendant as governed by Rule, 3.
1