Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 15 (0.31 seconds)
Sh. Lal Chand vs Sh. Gian Chand on 21 November, 2011 cites

Rajasthan Financial Corporation vs Pukhraj Jain And Ors. on 24 October, 2000

34. The judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Arjun Singh vs. Mohindra Kumar (Supra) has also been followed by the Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of Rajasthan Financial Corporation Vs. Pukhraj Jain and Ors. reported in AIR 2001 Raj 71 where the Hon'ble High Court was pleased to reject an application under Order 13, Rule 2, CPC moved by the plaintiff after the case was reserved for judgment holding that no application could be moved after the arguments were heard and the case was closed for judgment since as the Hon'ble Supreme Court had categorically decided in the case of Arjun Singh Vs.Mohindra Kumar that there is no hiatus between the two stages of reservation of judgment and pronouncement of judgment, it could not be said that there can be any stage in between the closure of the case for judgment and the pronouncement of the judgment itself.
Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur Cites 7 - Cited by 10 - Full Document

Pujya Sindhi Panchayat vs Prof. C.L. Mishra And Ors. on 20 March, 2002

35. Further in the case of Pujya Sindhi Panchayat Vs. Prof. C.L. Mishra and Ors. reported in AIR 2002 Raj 274 the Division Bench of the Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court was pleased to rely on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Arjun Singh vs. Mohindra Kumar (Supra) and hold that where hearing is completed the parties have no further rights or privileges in the matter and it is only for the convenience of the Court that Order 20 Rule 1 permits Judgment to be delivered after CS No. 160/11 Page No. 13 of 14 an interval after the hearing is completed. It would, therefore, follow that after the judgment is re served there remains no stage in any case.
Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur Cites 4 - Cited by 10 - Full Document

Lal Devi And Another vs Vaneeta Jain And Others on 14 May, 2007

"15. Having regard to the totality of circumstances we are of the view that in the interest of justice this appeal must be allowed. The learned District Judge recorded evidence, heard arguments and posted the matter later in the day for delivery of judgment. If the court had adjourned the proceedings to another day after deciding to proceed ex parte, the defendant could have applied for being permitted to participate in the proceedings. In this case since everything happened on the same day the defendant did not get an opportunity to do so. The learned District Judge decided to proceed ex parte. It thereafter examined the witnesses present in court and proceeded to hear arguments. It reserved its judgment to be pronounced later in the day. Even before he could pronounce judgment, counsel for the defendant had moved an application before him for recall of the order. It is true that in view of the law laid down by this Court in Arjun Singh1 the learned District Judge could not have entertained an application under Order 9 Rule 7 CPC."
Supreme Court of India Cites 3 - Cited by 41 - B P Singh - Full Document
1   2 Next