Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 12 (0.30 seconds)
Baijnath Ram And Ors. vs Mt. Tunkowati Kuer And Ors. on 15 February, 1962 cites

Jamuna Rai And Ors. vs Chandradip Rai And Ors. on 16 May, 1960

4. Before addressing ourselves to the questions raised, it would be necessary to notice some of the relevant provisions of Order 22 of the Code. This Order deals with the creation, assignment or devolution of interest of a party to the suit by his death, his marriage, his insolvency, or otherwise, during the pendency of the suit. I may state here that by virtue of Rule 11 the provisions of this Order apply to appeals also. Therefore, wherever the word 'plaintiff' or defendant is mentioned, the word 'plaintiff' shall be deemed to include an appellant and the word 'defendant' a respondent, and the word 'suit' an appeal. Rule 1 of this Order provides that the death of a plaintiff or defendant shall not cause the suit to abate if thy right to sue survives. Where the right to sue does not survive, there is an end of the suit. If the plaintiff or the defendant dies and if the right to sue survives, then the procedure laid down in Rule 2, 3 or 4, as the case may be, has to be followed for an effective trial of the suit.
Patna High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 11 - Full Document

Maharaja Sir Manindra Chandra Nandi vs Ram Kumar Bhagat on 3 April, 1922

It is plain that it is a residuary rule and applies to cases not specified in the rules that precede it. The words "other cases'" in this rule signify that it provides for cases of assignment, creation and devolution of interest other than those mentioned in Rules 2, 3, 4, 7 and 8. This is exactly what has been laid down by their Lordships of the Judicial Committee in Mahindra' Chandra v. Ram Kumar, AIR 1922 PC 304. They have observed as follows:
Bombay High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 13 - Full Document

Lachmi Narain Marwari vs Balmakund Marwari on 10 July, 1924

If there is no abatement in such a case, a fortiori, there is no abatement of suit if the death occurs after the decree has been passed. It is not to say that Order 22 does not apply to appeals. By virtue of Rule 11 of the said Order, the provisions thereof apply to appeals also, but not on the theory that an appeal is simply a continuation of suit. Therefore, for application of Rules 3 and 4 or, for the matter of that, other provisions a suit and an appeal have to be considered separately. It is now well-settled that there is no abatement under Rule 2, and Rules 3 and 4 have no application if the death of the plaintiff or the defendant, as the case may be, occurred after the decree. The question of, abatement of a suit arises only when the death takes place prior to the conclusion or the hearing of the suit. The reason is furnished by the pronouncement of their Lordships of the Judicial Committee in Lachhmi Narain V. Balmakund, AIR 1924 PC 198.
Bombay High Court Cites 1 - Cited by 65 - Full Document

Musammat Hifsa Khatoon And Ors. vs Mohammad Salimar Rahman And Ors. on 27 November, 1958

The expression "the right to sue survives, or does not survive" means only this that the right to sue is transmitted or passes, or is not transmitted or does not pass to the plaintiffs or against the defendants (see Mt. Hifsa Khatoon v. Mohammad Salimar Rahman, AIR 1959 Pat 254 (FB)). The expression has the same meaning in appeals also. When appeal has been preferred, the appellant's right to sue means the right to have the decree of the lower court set aside. For the application of Order 22, the proceedings in appeal are taken to be quite distinct from the proceedings in the suit, and the provisions of Order 22 apply as much to a suit as much to an appeal. Therefore, a right to sue which, in case of the death of a party during the pendency of a suit, would have survived will survive also on such death occurring during appeal from the decree in the suit. Thus, on a true and correct interpretation of the provisions of Order 22, the, view expressed in that case cannot be accepted as correct.
Patna High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 14 - V Ramaswami - Full Document

Mahadeolal Kanodia vs The Administrator-General Ofwest ... on 20 April, 1960

They felt bound by the previous Bench decisions, because, in their opinion, in face of those decisions the ruling given in the case of Lal Behari Gorain, AIR 1956 Pat 376 had no binding force. As observed by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Mahadeolal Kanodia v. Administrator General of West Bengal, AIR 1960 SC 936, in view of conflict of decisions, the Division Bench should not take upon itself to say that an earlier Division Bench ruling of the same High Court cited before it is wrong but should follow the usual procedure in case of difference of opinion with an earlier decision, of referring the question to a larger Bench. Therefore, the more appropriate course for the Bench to adopt was to refer the matter to a Full Bench. Any way, the decision in the case Of Jamuna Rai AIR 1961 Pat 178 is correct.
Supreme Court of India Cites 17 - Cited by 269 - K C Gupta - Full Document
1   2 Next