Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 10 (1.02 seconds)Article 227 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Section 200 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Parappa And Ors. vs Bhimappa And Anr. on 8 February, 2008
On behalf of the petitioners, reliance is placed upon the
decision of this court in Parappa and others v. Bhimappa
and another (supra) to assert that the petitioner should have
been granted an opportunity to cross-examine the
Commissioner and that would have enabled the petitioners to
bring all the anomalies in the Commissioner's report. This
Court in the aforesaid decision has recognised the right of a
party who is aggrieved by the report filed by a Commissioner
to seek examination of the Commissioner in the light of the
8 1995 Supp (4) SCC 600
41
provisions of Order XXVI Rule 10 of CPC. This Court has
dilated on the expression examination as found in these
provisions and held that this expression must include the
examination in chief, cross-examination and re-examination
while declaring that that if a party does not accept the
correctness of the report, it is open to such party to file
written objections, and to substantiate such objections, to
request the court for providing an opportunity to examine the
Commissioner in person.
Section 482 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Usha Sinha vs Dina Ram & Ors on 14 March, 2008
20. Sri. Paras Jain submits that the petitioners' right
is entirely restricted by the finding by this Court in WP No.
39296/2016 and the connected matters in consonance with
the settled law and the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court
in Usha Sinha v. Dina Ram and others5. He submits that a
purchaser of a property during the pendency of the litigation
from a party to such litigation has no right to resist or
obstruct the execution of the decree; the resistance at the
instance of a transferee of a judgment debtor cannot be said
to be resistance or obstruction by a person in his own right
and therefore, the transferee cannot rely upon the provisions
5 (2008) 7 Supreme Court cases 144
30
of either rule 98 or rule 100 of Order XXI of CPC. The
petitioners, who are admittedly transferees under the
judgment debtors, cannot object or seek any adjudication,
and they are not bona fide in their objections to the
Commissioner's report.
Article 226 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Section 34 in The Registration Act, 1908 [Entire Act]
Sri.S.Ramakrishna vs Sri.S.Appaiah on 16 March, 2020
In this regard, this Court must refer to the
decision in S Ramakrishna v. S. Appaiah and others9 and
also the decision of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh in
VaddaRajeswaramma v. V L Narasimha Charyulu and
others10. This Court must observe that the petitioners have
not made any request for examination of the Commissioner
either on 25th or 26th October, 2021. This Court, for the
aforesaid reason and also in the light of the discussion on the
first question, must hold even the second question against
the petitioners.
Rahul S Shah vs Sri. Jinendra Kumar Gandhi on 17 November, 2021
2. The dispute between the petitioners, who are
arrayed as objectors in Execution Nos.458 and 459 of 2007,
and the respondents has a chequered history, and the
dispute was multi hued. However, after the decision of this
Court on 16.01.2020 in W.P. No.39296/2016 and the
connected matters, and the confirmation thereof in Rahul S.
Shah vs. Jinendra Kumar Gandhi and Others1, the dispute
1 AIR 2021 SC 2161, and it is submitted that the review petition
is also rejected by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
6
between them is vastly rendered monochromatic. A synoptic
narration of facts leading to this petition would be thus.
1