Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 5 of 5 (0.30 seconds)
Iqbal Singh And Ors. vs Chanan Singh And Ors. on 2 September, 1965 cites

H. Bevis And Co. vs Ram Behari And Ors. on 28 September, 1950

There is, however, force in the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners based on the judgment of the Allahabad High Court in H. Bevis and Co., Kanpur v. Ram Behari, AIR 1951 All 8. In that case, an application under Order 39, rule 1 of the Code had been filed by the plaintiff. At the ex parte stage, the following order was passed by the trial Court on that application. --
Allahabad High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 20 - Full Document

L.D. Meston School Society vs Kashi Nath Misra on 19 September, 1950

Reliance has next been placed on a judgment of Agarwala, J. in L. D. Meston School Society v. Kashi Nath, AIR 1951 All. 558. This judgment was given by the learned Judge only nine days before his opinion expressed in the earlier case cited by Shri Pitam Singh Jain on a difference of opinion between the two other learned Judges was given. The reasoning of both the judgments of the learned Judge is the same and there is no inconsistency between them. In the case of AIR 1951 All 558, the ex parte temporary injunction had been granted and it was held by the learned Judge that whenever a Court passes an ex parte order of injunction, it is to be construed as an order passed under Rule 1 or Rule 2 and, as such, an appeal lies under Order 43, Rule 1 (r) of the Code. There is no quarrel with that proposition. The learned Judge had held to the same effect in the other case also. It cannot be argued that an order declining to grant an ex parte injunction is 'an order of injunction'.
Allahabad High Court Cites 1 - Cited by 21 - Full Document

Srimat Deivasikhamani Annamalai ... vs Rao Bahadur M. R. Govinda Rao on 10 January, 1923

5. The learned counsel for the petitioners has firstly relied on a judgment of the Madras High Court in S. D. Annamalai Desikar v. M. R. Govinda Rao, AIR 1924 Mad 857. This judgment does not render any assistance to the petitioners, as the only order which had been passed by the Subordinate Judge in that case was of issuing a notice as required by rule 3 of Order 39 of the Code. There was no order at all, even declining an ex parte injunction, passed in that case and it could not possibly have been argued that any order under rules 1 or 2 of Order 39 of the Code had been passed. In these circumstances, it was held that no appeal against an Order merely issuing a notice lies.
Bombay High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 5 - Full Document
1