Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 16 (0.73 seconds)Section 34 in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
The Delhi Rent Act, 1995
Section 115 in The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [Entire Act]
Section 34 in The Delhi Rent Act, 1995 [Entire Act]
Section 15 in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
Section 102 in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
Section 106 in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
Section 105 in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
Vora Abbasbhai Alimahomed vs Haji Gulamnabi Haji Safibhai on 22 October, 1963
47. After the judgment in Spl. C. A. No. 537 of 1975 was completed Mr. Morje, learned Advocate for defendant No. 3, appeared before me and wanted to argue the Civil Revision Application. He had no explanation to give for his absence all these days. He did not even try to explain as to why a revision application under Section 115, C. P. C. was filed instead of Spl. Civil Application under Article 227 of the Constitution. He was asked as to whether in similar other matters he had filed revision applications. He bad to admit that in several similar other matters he had filed Spl. Civil Applications. He had no explanation as to why a revision application was filed in this matter, although he knows that this question has been set at rest by the Supreme Court in Abbasbhai v. Gulamnabi, as early as on 22nd Oct., 1963 and that in view of that judgment and similar other subsequent judgments of the Supreme Court no revision application is normally filed by the Advocate or entertained by this Court in matters such as the present one. If any of the parties to the proceedings in the lower Courts, arising out of the Rent Act, is aggrieved by any decision of the said Courts, he invokes the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution, a position of which Mr. Morje is fully aware. All the same no reason was even whispered as to why a revision application was filed in the instant case.