Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 5 of 5 (0.16 seconds)D.L.F. Housing & Construction Company ... vs Sarup Singh And Others on 12 September, 1969
The first being D. L. F. Housing and Construction Co. (P) Ltd. v. Sarup Singh AIR 1971 Sc 2324. The lower Court here had stayed proceedings under S. 30 of the Land Acquisition Act pending decision of a suit for specific performance, on the ground that the entire matter relating to apportionment of compensation was covered by that suit. It was held that merely because the High Court would have felt inclined, had it dealt with the matter initially, to come to a different conclusion on the question on continuing stay of the reference proceedings, pending decision of the suit, the impugned order could hardly justify interference in revision under section 115 of the Code. In holding so, the Court observed (at p. 2327):--
Section 16 in The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [Entire Act]
Section 30 in The Land Acquisition Act, 1894 [Entire Act]
Ralyaram Melaram, A Firm And Anr. vs Kaluram Agarwalla And Ors. on 16 September, 1949
8. Faced with this situation, Mr. Suresh Amba, counsel for the plaintiff, rightly made no attempt to support or justify the impugned order but sought instead to render it immune from attack on the plea that no revision was competent and the Court was thus precluded from interfering with the order under challenge. The argument being that the impugned order was merely a wrong order but not one without jurisdiction, and, therefore, the provisions of S. 115 of the Code could not be invoked to set it aside. Cited in support here was the judgment of the High Court of Calcutta in Ralyaram Melaram, a Firm v. Kaluram Aggarwalla, Air 1950 Cal 149, where it was held that a wrong decision on the question whether in the circumstances certain particulars should be ordered or not had nothing whatsoever to do with jurisdiction and could not, therefore, be revised under S. 115 of the Code. Reliance was also placed upon two judgments of the Supreme Court.
1