Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 7 of 7 (0.18 seconds)Arjun Singh vs Mohindra Kumar & Ors on 13 December, 1963
It runs directly contrary to the decision of the Supreme Court in Arjun Singh's case (supra). For that reason, it is not a good law.
Billa Jagan Mohan Reddy vs Billa Sanjeeva Reddy on 28 January, 1994
The point as to whether the application could be made after the closure of the case for judgment or not, had not been raised in that case and what the Court has decided, relying on the decision of the Supreme Court reported in Billa Jagan Mohan Reddy v. Billa Sanjeeva Reddy, 1994 (4) SCC 659, is that if the document is necessary for disposal of the suit, it should be accepted even at the stage of arguments. The Supreme Court case relied upon in the aforesaid decision is clearly distinguishable on facts as the documents in that case were sought to be produced at the stage of arguments and not after the case was closed for judgment.
Badri Prasad Soni vs S. Kripal Singh on 3 May, 1980
8. The next case relied upon was a single Bench decision of M. P. High Court in Badri Prasad v. S. Kripal Singh, AIR 1981 MP 228. In this case, an application under Order 6, Rule 17, CPC was filed after the case was posted for delivery of judgment.
Section 151 in The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [Entire Act]
Karti And Ors. vs Rattia And Ors. on 1 October, 1980
In Smt. Karti v. Rattia, AIR 1981 P & H 185, a learned single Judge of in Punjab and Haryana High Court has distinguished the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Arjun Singh (supra). In the facts of that case, an application under Order 13, Rule 2, CPC moved after the arguments were heard and before the judgment was pronounced was accepted by the trial Court and the revision petition was filed against the order of such acceptance. The case is clearly distinguishable because by accepting the application the Court itself had reversed the process before pronouncement of judgment.
Celestina Rosario & Others vs Mrs. Mariquinha F.D. Rosario & Others on 30 April, 1998
11. A single Bench decision of the Bombay High Court in Celestina Rosario v. Mrs. Hariquinha F.D. Rosario (1999 (2) CCC 599 : (1997 AIHC 150) (Bom) was also cited.
1