Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 12 (0.18 seconds)Article 181 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Muhammad Zafaryab Khan vs Abdul Razzac Khan And Ors. on 15 May, 1928
Their Lordships Allsop and Verma JJ., followed earlier Allahabad decision in Mohammad Zafaryab Khan v. Abdul Razzac Khan, AIR 1928 All 532, wherein it was held that an appeal did not abate against heirs who had not been impleaded as heirs of the deceased respondent when other heirs are so impleaded.
Mulchand Hemraj vs Jairamdas Chaturbhuj on 14 August, 1934
In Firm Mulchand Hemraj v. Jairamdas Chaturbhuj AIR 1935 Bom 287 it was held by Wadia, J., that it is sufficient compliance with Order 22 Rule 4 C.P.C. if one legal representative alone is brought on record and it is not necessary always to bring all of them on record.
Jehrabi Sadullakhan Mokasi vs Bismillabi Sadruddin Kaji on 12 February, 1924
The learned Judge followed the earlier decision of that Court in Jehrabi v. Bismillabi AIR 1924 Bom 420 and the decision in AIR 1928 All 532 referred to above.
Poonam Chand vs Motilal on 23 August, 1954
In Poonam Chand v. Motilal, AIR 1954 Raj 287 the appellant on coming to know of the death of a respondent applied for bringing on record two out of his three sons within the period of limitation. There was no collusion or fraud in so doing. It was held the appeal did not abate.
Muthuraman Chettiar vs Adaikappa Chetty And Ors. on 9 May, 1934
In Muthuraman v. Adaikappa AIR 1936 Mad 336 it is held by Beasley, C. J. and Stodart, J., that there is preponderance of authority that when a party takes proper steps to substitute on the record the representatives of an adversary who has died pendente lite he is not to be penalised because he has not brought on record the entire body of the representatives.