Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 7 of 7 (0.71 seconds)The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
Abdul Majid vs Jew Narain Mahto And Ors. on 3 December, 1888
I, therefore, consider that Abdul Majid v. Jew Narain Mahto 16 C. 233 was wrongly decided, and I would accordingly refer the question of the correctness of the decision in it to a Full Bench."
Balkishan Das vs Madan Lal And Ors. on 23 January, 1907
He remarks at page 1116: "It may be accepted as correct that the expression 'former suit' as occurring in that section, as the Allahabad High Court has held in the case of Balkishan v. Kishan Lal 11 A. 148, and which has been approvingly quoted by the Madras High Court in the case of Gururajammah v. Venkatakrishnama Chetti 24 M. 350 does not relate to the date of commencement of the litigation, but to the time when the Judge is called upon to decide the issue, and 'that the rule contained in Section 13 is not limited to the Courts of first instance and that it equally applies to the procedure of the first and second appellate Courts by reason of sections 582 and 587 respectively, but still the question here is which is the judgment that operates as a bar in this case?" The learned Chief Justice seems to have based his decision entirely upon Section 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure of 1882. At page 1114 he says Section 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure upon which the decision of the question referred to rests, runs as follows:(quotes the section)."
Mariamnissa Bibi vs Joynab Bibi on 11 June, 1906
In Mariamnisa Bibi v. Joynab Bibi 33 C. 1101 : 10 C.W.N. 934 : 4 C.L.J. 149, the facts were these. Two Muhammadan co-widows Marimnisa Bibi and Joynab Bibi brought two separate suits for the recovery of their dowers from the estate of their deceased husbands. A question was raised in these suits whether two houses belonged to the estate of the husband. By consent of the parties the Subordinate Judge tried both the suits together and disposed of them in one judgment, it being found that the two houses belonged to Mariamnisa as her separate property. Two separate decrees were drawn up in accordance with that judgment. The other widow Joynab preferred an appeal against the decree in her own suit mainly on the ground that the conclusion arrived at by the Subordinate Judge in the suit of Mariamnisa Bibi respecting the title to the two houses was erroneous, but no appeal was preferred in Marimnisa's suit. At the hearing of the appeal a question was raised on behalf of Mariamnisa that the judgment in her suit not having been appealed against operated as res judicata. It was held by Ghose, C.J., and Harington J, (Rampini J, dissenting) that there was no bar of res judicata. Kampini, J., in his judgment referring to Section 13 of the former Code observes at p. 1107 of the report: "it has also been said that the words 'former suit' in Section 13 cannot relate to Mariamnisa Bibi's suit, as both suits were tried simultaneously and disposed of by one judgment. But there were two distinct suits, two sets of pleadings and issues; and though the two suits were disposed of by one judgment, this is an irregular procedure sanctioned only by consent but not expressly allowed by any section of the Code of Civil Procedure. In the eye of the law there were two judgments, one in each suit, though the Subordinate Judge may have delivered the same judgment in both suits. Hence there were necessarily two appeals.
Panchanada Velan vs Vaithinatha Sastrial And Ors. on 10 November, 1905
In the later case, however, of Fanchanda Velan v. Vaithinatha Sastrial 29 M. 333 : 16 M.L.J. 63 a different view was taken: In that case cross suits between the same parties on the same facts were tried together and judgment was given on the same day but separate decrees were passed, and an appeal was preferred against one of the decrees alone. It was held by Sir Arnold White, C.J. Subramania Ayyar and Davies, JJ., that the decree unappealed did not operate as a bar under Section 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1882, so as to preclude the appellate Court from dealing with the decree appealed against.
Gururajammah vs Venkatakrishnama Chetti And Ors. on 8 January, 1901
He remarks at page 1116: "It may be accepted as correct that the expression 'former suit' as occurring in that section, as the Allahabad High Court has held in the case of Balkishan v. Kishan Lal 11 A. 148, and which has been approvingly quoted by the Madras High Court in the case of Gururajammah v. Venkatakrishnama Chetti 24 M. 350 does not relate to the date of commencement of the litigation, but to the time when the Judge is called upon to decide the issue, and 'that the rule contained in Section 13 is not limited to the Courts of first instance and that it equally applies to the procedure of the first and second appellate Courts by reason of sections 582 and 587 respectively, but still the question here is which is the judgment that operates as a bar in this case?" The learned Chief Justice seems to have based his decision entirely upon Section 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure of 1882. At page 1114 he says Section 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure upon which the decision of the question referred to rests, runs as follows:(quotes the section)."
1