Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 7 of 7 (0.48 seconds)Section 151 in The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [Entire Act]
Section 104 in The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [Entire Act]
Bimal Kumar & Anr vs Shakuntala Debi & Ors on 27 February, 2012
In support of his submission he cited a
judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Bimal Kumar
v. Shakuntala Debi1 so also this Court reiterating the
same view in the case of Mahadev Talawar v. Irappa
1
(2012) 3 SCC 548
L. Guran Ditta vs T.R. Ditta on 6 December, 1934
In Guran Ditta, L. v. T.R. Ditta, reported in
AIR 1935 PC 12, their Lordship observed that, "final
decree neither relates to substantive rights of the parties
nor decides or declares title to the property or shares of
Muthangi Ayyanna vs Muthangi Jaggarao And Ors. on 26 October, 1976
NC: 2024:KHC:32716-DB
RFA No. 699 of 2015
the parties to the partition suit and till the final decree is
passed, there is no executable decree as envisaged by
order 20 Rule 18 of CPC". The Hon'ble Supreme Court in
Muthangi Ayyanna v. Muthangi Jaggarao3, has held
that "a final decree cannot go behind, amend, or alter
preliminary decree". If these principles are applied to the
present facts of the case, the learned trial Court has
already passed the final decree and it is registered. The
appellant has not invoked the provisions of Order 41 Rule
1(u) of CPC by preferring appeal to nullify the said decree
of the trial Court. He challenged the said order with a
prayer to draw the final decree by filing an interim
application, which came to be dismissed. In view of the
facts brought on records, the present appeal is nothing but
an attempt to re-litigate which is not permissible under
law. When earlier application of the appellant was
dismissed on merits, though it is submitted that under
common law the appellant can seek for setting aside the
3
(1977) 1 SCC 241
Mahadev Talawar vs Irappa Hatti on 3 April, 2018
In support of his submission he cited a
judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Bimal Kumar
v. Shakuntala Debi1 so also this Court reiterating the
same view in the case of Mahadev Talawar v. Irappa
1
(2012) 3 SCC 548
1