Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 8 of 8 (0.64 seconds)The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
Kshitish Chandra Purkait vs Santosh Kumar Purkait & Ors on 7 May, 1997
11. The Court has also referred to the approach taken
in earlier judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in
case of Kshitish Chandra Purkait Vs. Santosh Kumar
Purkait, reported in (1997) 5 SCC 438. Again it
has also been reiterated as to what could be said
to be a question of law. It has been observed,
"According to the court the word substantial,
as qualifying "question of law", means of
having substance, essential, real, of sound
worth, important or considerable. It is to be
understood as something in contradistinction
with technical, of no substance or
consequence, or academic merely. However, it
is clear that the legislature has chosen not
to qualify the scope of "substantial question
of law" by suffixing the words "of general
importance" as has been done in many other
provisions such as Section 109 of the Code of
Article 133(1) (a) of the Constitution."
Rana Bharatsinh Jasubha vs Heirs Of Valand Laljibhi Arjanbhai. & 9 on 9 January, 2014
He submitted that there has to
be an evidence with regard to the right of way for
a period of 20 years and as the plaintiff has
failed to establish, the findings are erroneous.
He submitted that there is no scope for any
presumption and the Court below has committed
error. Similarly, he referred to and relied upon
the judgment of the High Court (Coram : N.V.
Anjaria, J.) in case of Rana Bharatsinh Jasubha
Vs. Heirs of Valand Laljibhai Arjanbhai & Ors.,
reported in 2014 (2) GLR 1688 and submitted that
the evidence which is contrary to the pleading,
cannot be relied upon. He emphasized that while
deciding the issue with regard to the easement by
prescription, the Court ought to have considered
the use of the land for passage for a period of 20
years, which has not been done and has discussed
without any issue or specific issue being raised.
Similarly, he has referred to and relied upon the
judgment of the High Court (Coram : K.A. Puj, J.)
Section 109 in The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [Entire Act]
Nagarplaika Thakurdwara vs Khalil Ahmed & Ors on 28 September, 2016
12. Therefore what could be said to be a question of
law rather substantial question of law has to be
specified. A useful reference can be made to the
judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of
Nagarpalika Thakurdwara Vs. Khalil Ahmed & Ors.,
reported in AIR 2016 SC 4477, wherein it has been
observed as to what could be said to be
Page 10 of 11
HC-NIC Page 10 of 11 Created On Fri Dec 30 00:13:30 IST 2016
C/SA/211/2016 JUDGMENT
substantial question of law.
Kulwant Kaur & Ors vs Gurdial Singh Mann (Dead) By Lrs & Ors on 21 March, 2001
Learned advocate, Shri Thakore has also referred
to and relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble
Apex Court in case of Kulwant Kaur Vs. Gurdial
Singh Mann (dead) by L.Rs. & Ors., reported in AIR
2001 SC 1273 and submitted that if the finding of
fact is perverse then, the High Court can
interfere with the finding of facts.
Ganesh Kesha Hanath vs Kantaben Lakhman Hanath on 12 June, 2007
in case of Ganesh Kesha Hanath Vs. Kantaben Wd/o
Lakhman Hanath, reported in 2007 (3) GLR 170 and
submitted that the present appeal may be admitted.
1