Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 7 of 7 (0.20 seconds)
A.H. Ghaznavi And Anr. vs Sardar Gurcharan Singh on 3 May, 1937 cites

Radha Mohan Datt, Silk Merchant vs Abbas Ali Biswas And Ors. on 3 February, 1931

In Radha Mohan Datt v. Abbas Ali Biswas A.I.R. 1931 All 294 at p. 382, when the Full Bench was considering the soope of Section 115, Civil P.C., it was observed that the section itself provides that revision is not entertainable where an appeal lay to the High Court and this provision clearly contemplated a case where no appeal lay either in the form of a first appeal or a second appeal from a decree or from an interlocutory order under Section 104 and Order 43, Civil P.C. The above authorities make it quite clear that no revision lies from the decree dated 20th August 1931.
Allahabad High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 28 - Full Document

Ram Sarup vs Gaya Prasad on 16 July, 1925

In the case Ram Sarup v. Gaya Prasad A.I.R. 1925 All. 610, after the decision of the Full Bench that the High Court can interfere in revision with an appellate order directing the setting aside of an ex parte decree, when the matter came before the Division Bench and it was argued that the Court had inherent jurisdiction to set aside an ex parte decree, it was held that a Court has no jurisdiction outside the provisions of Order 9, Rule 13, to set aside an ex parte decree. The position, therefore, is that the applicant who is applying for the setting aside of an ex parte decree must satisfy either that the summons was not duly served or that he was prevented by any sufficient cause from appearing when the suit was called on for hearing. In the present case it is conceded that the summons was duly served, but all that is contended is that the applicants were prevented by sufficient cause from appearing when the suit was called on for hearing, and as we have mentioned before, there is a clear finding of the Courts below that the applicants were themselves to blame in not attending the Court when the suit was called on for hearing. That being so, if the case is to be dealt with as an application for the setting aside of an ex parte decree, there are no merits in the case, and the application must be dismissed.
Allahabad High Court Cites 9 - Cited by 26 - Full Document

Lila vs Mahange And Ors. on 10 July, 1931

The case in Lila v. Mahange A.I.R. 1931 All. 632, was also brought to our notice, but that again has not much application to the facts of the present case and, if anything, goes against the contention of the applicants, because it was held therein that as a matter of practice it may be conceded that ordinarily the High Court would not interfere if another convenient remedy is open to an applicant, particularly when that remedy is by way of appeal to a lower Court, but the learned Judges observed that it could not be laid down as a general proposition that the High Court had no power of interference at all or should not interfere where there was another remedy by way of a suit open to the applicant. It would thus appear that we could not interfere in revision and set aside the ex parte decree dated 20th August 1931. For the reasons given above, we dismiss this application with costs.
Allahabad High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 11 - Full Document

Mahadeo Prasad vs Khubi Ram on 14 June, 1929

7. Our attention was drawn to the ease in Mahadeo Prasad v. Khubi Ram A.I.R. 1929 All. 793. That was a case in which the trial Court rejected an application under Order 21, Rule 90, and the District Judge confirmed that order. This Court in revision interfered with the order of the trial Court, because this Court was of the opinion that the trial Court had acted with material irregularity in the exercise of its jurisdiction, and it was held that it was open to the High Court to revise the order of the trial Court, although the application in revision was against the order of the District Judge. It may be observed that the order which was revised could not come up in appeal to the High Court at all except through an application in revision and the case, therefore, has no bearing to the facts of the present case.
Allahabad High Court Cites 0 - Cited by 3 - Full Document

Bani Madho Ram vs (Pandit) Mahadeo Pandey on 23 April, 1930

In Beni Madho Ram v. Mahadeo Pandey A.I.R. 1930 All. 604, a Bench of this Court held that there is no ground for restricting the scope of the words "in which no appeal lies thereto" to cases where no appeal lies direct to the High Court from the order sought to be revised, and so long as the party has a right to come up to the High Court by way of an appeal and has failed to avail himself of that opportunity by first going up to the District Judge and then coming up to the High Court, he cannot ask the High Court to interfere in revision. This is exactly what has happened in the present case. The applicants, if they were aggrieved by the ex parte decree and if they thought that on the date when the Civil Judge proposed to dispose of the suit on the merits ex parte he should not have done so, ought to have appealed against the decree to the District Judge and should, if necessary, afterwards have come to this Court. That remedy being open to them, it cannot be said that no appeal lay to the High Court in the case which was decided by the learned Civil Judge on 20th August 1931.
Allahabad High Court Cites 0 - Cited by 5 - Full Document
1