Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 17 (0.30 seconds)The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
Firm G.S. Bhargava And Co. Through L. ... vs Firm Jagan Nath Bhagwan Dass Through L. ... on 26 April, 1919
610 : 16 A.L.J 777 : 41 A. 42, and the case of Bhargava and Co. v. Jagannath Bhagwan Das 5 ind. Cas. 331 : 41 A. 602 : 17 A.L.J. 718 : 1 U.P.L.R. (A.) 120, decided by Rafique and Walsh, JJ,, who took the opposite view.
Makhan Lal Parsottam Das vs Chunni Lal Brij Lal on 23 July, 1918
29. There are only two reported cases exactly in point. One by A. Rauof, J., sitting alone, who held this Court could not interfere, Makhan Lal v. Chunni Lal 47 Ind. Cas.
Section 2 in The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [Entire Act]
Section 15 in The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [Entire Act]
Section 20 in The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [Entire Act]
Section 26 in The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [Entire Act]
Malik Mohammad Ayub vs Malik Mohammad Mahmood And Ors. on 25 May, 1910
11. In what I have said above I have, as I think, incidentally disposed of an argument on which a good deal of stress seemed to be laid in support of this application. If I rightly understood the point, it was represented to us, more particularly with reference to the case-law on the subject, that there must be something inherently unsound, or even absurd, about the proposition that a Court can, by determining a particular question in one sense, decide a case between contending parties, whereas a finding in the opposite sense would not be held to have decided the case. This was not the opinion of the learned Judges of this Court who dealt with an application in revision in the reported case of Mohammad Ayub v. Mohammad Mahmood 6 Ind. Cas. 831 : 32 A. 623 : 7 A.L.J. 741 and I cannot myself see anything unsound about the proposition, stated in general terms. Suppose, for instance, that the pleadings, in a suit raise the question whether or not the claim, on the facts stated in the plaint itself, is barred by limitation. A finding that it is so barred would obviously decide the entire case; it would result in a decree dismissing the suit. A finding in the opposite sense would certainly not determine the suit; and to hold that it had nevertheless decided a "case" between the parties seems to me contrary to the letter and spirit of Order XIV, Rule 2 of the Civil Procedure Code.