Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 11 (0.27 seconds)
Radha Mohan Datt, Silk Merchant vs Abbas Ali Biswas And Ors. on 3 February, 1931 cites

Nand Ram vs Bhopal Singh on 8 June, 1912

Nand Ram v. Bhopal Singh (3) was not cited before the Full Bench; nor was that decision relevant for the purpose of that case. We are of opinion that this case has no bearing upon the first question referred to us. We are of opinion that it has a bearing upon the second question. But we are not prepared to endorse the proposition that an order setting aside an ex parte decree is an order of the same character as a finding of the Court in a pending suit that it has jurisdiction to try the suit.
Allahabad High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 15 - Full Document

Ram Sarup vs Gaya Prasad on 16 July, 1925

This was the view taken by Lindsay, J., in Ram Sarup v. Gaya Prasad (4) and we agree with this view. These proceedings were in the order of sequence anterior to the proceeding in the suit itself which did not commence till after the ex parte decree had been discharged. From the very nature of things, therefore these could not be treated as interlocutory proceedings in the suit. We ought not to lose sight of the fact that the order under Order 9, Rule 13. merely ensures the retrial of the suit upon the merits and is not an order in the suit itself.
Allahabad High Court Cites 9 - Cited by 26 - Full Document

Buddhoo Lal And Anr. vs Mewa Ram on 26 January, 1921

35. The learned Judges however found themselves unable to interfere with the order in revision, because they considered that the case was governed by the decision in In re Nand Ram v. Bhopal Singh (3), which according to them had by implication been approved by a Full Bench in the recent case of Buddhoo Lal v. Mewa Ram A.I.R. 1921 All. 1. In the last mentioned case, the question which arose was as to whether the finding of the Munsif on one out of several issues, that he had jurisdiction to try a suit, was open to revision under Section 115, Civil P.C. It was held by the majority of the Full Bench that no revision lay inasmuch as the order against which the application in revision had been filed was merely a finding by the trial Court on one out of seven issues arising in a suit which was still pending in that Court. No question relating to the construction of Section 105 was raised or was necessary. The whole argument appears to have hinged upon the connotation of the term " case " in Section 115.
Allahabad High Court Cites 18 - Cited by 44 - Full Document

Sheo Prasad Singh vs Kastura Kuar on 26 November, 1887

10. It has been held by this Court in a number of cases, notably in Sheo Prasad Singh v. Kstura Kuar [1888] 10 All. 119 that the revisional powers of the High Court under Section 115 (corresponding to Section 622, Act 14 of 1882) should not be exercised except as a last resort for an aggrieved litigant. The section itself provides that revision is not entertainable where an appeal lies to the High Court. This clearly contemplates a case where no appeal lies either in the form of a first appeal or a second appeal from a decree, or from an interlocutory order under Sections 101 and Order 43, 'Civil P.C. It has been contended however that although the order is not exposed to a frontal attack in the shape of a direct appeal to the High Court, it can be impugned as a ground of objection in the memorandum of appeal from the decree which may be eventually passed in the suit itself. Reliance has been placed upon Section 105 of the present Civil P. C, which corresponds to Section 591, Act 14 of 1882. Clause (1) of the section runs as follows:
Allahabad High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 9 - Full Document

Sheikh Kallu And Anr. vs Nadir Baksh And Anr. on 4 August, 1921

41. We have no doubt that we have before us a proceeding distinct from the suit itself which commenced by an application to set aside the ex parte decree and which terminated by an order discharging the said decree. We are therefore of opinion that in a case where the order setting aside a decree has been passed by a Court in defiance of the provision of Order 9, Rule 13, Civil P.C., the matter is a "case decided" under Section 115, Civil P.C., and this High Court is entitled to interfere in revision. We respectfully dissent from the view of the learned Judges in Kallu v. Nadir Bux.
Allahabad High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 9 - Full Document

Niddha Lal And Ors. vs The Collector Of Bulandshahr And Anr. on 25 April, 1916

In Niddha Lal v. the Collector of Bulandshahr [1916] 35 I.C. 209, the same matter came up before a Bench of this Court but in another form. The suit having abated by reason of the death of the plaintiff it was dismissed. Subsequently the suit was restored under Order 22, Rule 9 (2), Civil P.C. and was eventually decreed on appeal. The question raised was as to. whether the order restoring the suit could be made a ground of attack in an appeal from the decree passed in the suit. It was held that the words "error, defect or irregularity" in Section 105, meant error, defect or irregularity affecting the decision of the case on the merits, and any question as to the propriety of an order setting aside the abatement under Order 22, Rule 9 (2), Civil P.C., could not be questioned under Section 105.
Allahabad High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 7 - Full Document

Paidapati Venkatanarasu vs Vikram Kotayya And Ors. on 19 March, 1926

29. It is patent therefore that, according to this view, an order setting aside the ex parte decree is not in all cases an order affecting the merits. The view of Wallach J., in this case has been followed by the same Court in Paidapati Venkatantrasu v. Vikram Kotayya A.I.R. 1926 Mad. 900. In this case the District Munsif returned the plaint for presentation to the revenue Court. On appeal the District Judge held that the suit was triable by" the Munsif and the claim was remanded-The Munsif decreed the suit. The Sub-ordinate Judge on appeal confirmed that decree. On second appeal to the High Court the decrees of the two Courts below were set aside and the order of the original Court directing the return of the plaint for presentation to the revenue Court was restored. A Letters Patent appeal was preferred from the order of the High Court directing the remand. This was heard by Phillips and Madhavan Nair, JJ. They quote a passage from the judgment of Wallach, J., in the last mentioned case and' observe as follows:
Madras High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 3 - Full Document

Puran Mal vs Tarif And Ors. on 20 July, 1915

In Puran Mal v. Tarif [1915] 30 I.C. 2 the same question came up before a Bench of this Court after the passing of Act 5 of 1908, and it was held that the propriety of the order setting aside the ex parte decree could not be questioned in the appeal from the decree in the suit, and Section 105(1), Civil P.C., did not apply. Richard C.J., observed as follows:
Allahabad High Court Cites 0 - Cited by 4 - Full Document
1   2 Next