Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 30 (0.31 seconds)Section 5 in The Limitation Act, 1963 [Entire Act]
Senaji Kapurchand vs Pannaji Devichand on 31 August, 1931
In -- 'Senaji Kapurchand v. Pannaji Devichand', AIR 1932 Bom 81 a plea was taken by the defendant that the plaintiff's suit was barred by res judicata. The Subordinate Judge heard arguments on this preliminary issue and held that the suit was not barred by res judicata and ordered that the suit should proceed on merits. On revision being preferred it was observed after review of cases,
"The overwhelming balance of authority is in support of the view that a finding on an interlocutory matter followed by an order is not a case decided within the meaning of Section 115, C.P.C., and that the High Court will not interfere in a case where the party aggrieved has another remedy open to him by way of appeal. In the present case, supposing the ultimate decision of the case to be in favour of the plaintiff, it would be open to the defendant to appeal to this Court against the decree of the lower Court......It
may be pointed out that it is extremely inconvenient if the High Court should interfere in revision with a finding on an issue of res judicata which will be equivalent to final disposal of the suit. In these circumstances, I have no hesitation in holding that the present finding on the issue of res judicata or rather the interlocutory order that the case should proceed is not one against which revision under Section 115, C. P. C., is open to the party aggrieved".
Bharat Singh vs Tej Singh And Anr. on 11 December, 1917
--'Bharat Singh v. Raj Singh', 1951 Raj L W 507 in which the view taken in -- 'Bibi Gur-devi's case' was approved.
Article 32 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Section 105 in The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [Entire Act]
Mt. Suraj Pali vs Ariya Pretinidhi Sabha on 11 May, 1936
14. This case, however, was specifically overruled by the same Court in -- 'Mt, Suraj Pali v. Ariya Pretinidhi Sabha', AIR 1936 All 686 (FB) where it was held that "No revision lies from an order refusing to allow an amendment of a pleading." It was, however, pointed out that
"where the amendment comes under some other order of the Court, e.g., the addition or substitution of parties or the striking off of a pleading may amount to a case decided, but an order passed purely under Order 6, Rule 17 does not."
Ramzan Ali vs Mt. Satul Bibi And Ors. on 8 May, 1947
--'Bharat Singh v. Raj Singh', 1951 Raj L W 507 in which the view taken in -- 'Bibi Gur-devi's case' was approved.
Maharaja Sashi Kanta Acharjya Bahadur vs Nasirabad Loan Office Co. Ltd. And Ors. on 7 February, 1936
I may also refer to another Calcutta case -- 'Sashi Kanta Acharjya v. Nasirabad Loan Office Co. Ltd.', AIR 1936 Cal 786 in which a learned Single Judge took a slightly different view.
The Municipal Borough Of Ahmedabad vs The Aryodaya Ginning And Manufacturing ... on 25 March, 1941
Reference may be made to --Municipal Borough of Ahmedabad v. Aryodaya Ginning and Manufacturing Co. Ltd.', AIR 1941 Bom 361, -- 'Surpat Singh v. Ratan Chand', AIR 1940 Cal 92, -- 'Lakshimidevamma v. Nag-ayya', A I R 1949 Mad 369, -- 'Liladhar v. Firm Radhakishen Ramsahaya', AIR 1946 Nag 5, -- 'Murarji Surji v. Jayant Trading Corporation Limited, Bombay', AIR 1949 Kutch 5, and -- 'Chandra Kishore v. Babulal Agarwala', AIR 1949 Orissa 77.