Khudi Rai vs Lalo Rai on 12 July, 1925
Khudi Rai v. Lalo Rai (1925) I.L.R. 5 Pat.
Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 5 of 5 (0.21 seconds)Keelangoti Narayana Tantri vs Nagappa And Ors. on 14 November, 1917
23, and Narayana Tantri v. Nagappa . are not on all fours because in those cases there was a request in the applications that liberty to bring a fresh suit should be allowed. In the present case the plaintiff announced his intention of bringing a fresh suit but he did not actually ask for liberty to bring the suit. There is perhaps something to be said for the argument that in substance the plaintiff obtained the Court's permission to bring a fresh suit, but we do not propose to deal with the case on this ground. We are clearly of opinion that in any case the plaintiff's failure to obtain the leave of the Court to bring this suit is not fatal to his suit.
Rajmal Girdharlal Marwadi vs Maruti Shivram on 13 July, 1920
5. There are authorities binding on this Court which show that an application to file an award, although it is numbered and registered as a suit, is not a suit for all purposes, e.g. it is not a suit for the purpose of applying the rule of res judicata, Rajmal Girdharlal v. Maruti Shivram (1920) I.L.R. 45 Bom. 329, s.c. 22 Bom. L.R. 1377., and there are several authorities of the Allahabad High Court on the same point.
Kunwar Mohammad Abdul Jalil Khan vs Kunwar Mohammad Abdus Salam Khan on 2 June, 1931
It is impossible however to say that an application to file an award and a suit to enforce the award are similarly in pari materia: see Muhammad Nawaz Khan v. Alam Khan (1891) L.R. 18 I.A. 73. We do not think that this case therefore is any ground for not applying what Mr. Coyajee concedes is the ordinary rule of construction, and we hold that if a suit in Order XXIII, Rule 1, can mean an application to file an award at all it must mean that wherever the word occurs. The rule cannot be construed to mean that the withdrawal of an application without liberty reserved is a bar to the institution of a suit. That is enough to dispose of this appeal, and as we have not had the advantage of hearing Mr. Coyajee on the other points I will say very little about them.
Gauri Shankar vs Maida Koer on 29 March, 1904
1, Gauri Shankar v. Maida Koer (1904) I.L.R. 31 Cal. 516. is the only authority. It was there held that such an application is a suit within the meaning of that rule. There was no discussion of the point and authorities were not cited. But in the view we take it is not really very material whether an application to file an award is to be regarded as a suit within the meaning of this rule or not. The rule is essentially a rule of procedure, and it would seem that it would be applicable under Section 141 of the Code whether an application is to be regarded as a suit or not.
1