Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 8 of 8 (0.40 seconds)Article 227 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Harvinder Kaur And Anr. vs Godha Ram And Anr. on 24 August, 1978
"In two Division Bench decisions of this Court in
Smt.Harvinder Kaur and another v. Godha Ram and
another, AIR 1979 Punjab and Haryana 76 and Pritam Singh
v. Sunder Lal, 1991 (1) RRR 356 :(1990-2) 98 PLR 191, it
has been held that the order refusing to appoint the Local
Commissioner under Order 26 Rule 9 C.P.C. is not revisable
under Section 115 C.P.C., therefore, such an order should not
be interfered now under Article 227 of the Constitution of
India.
Surya Dev Rai vs Ram Chander Rai & Ors on 7 August, 2003
Moreover, law has been well settled by Hon'ble Apex Court in
Surya Dev Rai v. Ram Chander Rai and others, 2003(6) SCC 675 : AIR
2003 SC 3044: 2004(1) RCR (Civil) 147, that supervisory jurisdiction is not
available to be exercised for indulging in re-appreciation or evaluation of
evidence or correcting the errors for drawing inference like a Court of
appeal. It has been observed as under:-
Pritam Singh And Anr. vs Sunder Lal And Ors. on 25 April, 1990
This Court in subsequent judgment rendered in Sumer Chand
Jain v. Vishnu Bhagwan Mangla, 2006(2) RCR (Civil) 445: 2006(2) PLR
844: 2006(1) PLJ 59 by placing reliance upon Harvinder Kaur's case
(supra) and Pritam Singh's case (supra) observed as under:-
The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
Sumer Chand Jain vs Vishnu Bhagwan Mangla on 20 February, 2006
This Court in subsequent judgment rendered in Sumer Chand
Jain v. Vishnu Bhagwan Mangla, 2006(2) RCR (Civil) 445: 2006(2) PLR
844: 2006(1) PLJ 59 by placing reliance upon Harvinder Kaur's case
(supra) and Pritam Singh's case (supra) observed as under:-
Hari Om vs Minish Kumar on 13 January, 2005
In this regard, in Hari Om v. Minish Kumar, (2005-
1