Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 8 of 8 (1.49 seconds)
Malkiat Singh vs Narinder Singh And Another on 12 December, 2011 cites

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.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 0 - Cited by 158 - Full Document

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:-
Supreme Court of India Cites 25 - Cited by 3621 - R C Lahoti - Full Document

Hari Om vs Minish Kumar on 13 January, 2005

In this regard, in Hari Om v. Minish Kumar, (2005-2) PLR 690, it was observed by this Court that if a revision petition under Section 115 C.P.C. against the impugned order is not maintainable, then by mere change in the head note of the petition, the substance cannot be replaced to wriggle out from the rigors of law which is well settled that no revision petition under Section 115 C.P.C. is maintainable."
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 36 - Full Document
1