Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 11 (0.20 seconds)The Court of Wards Act, 1879
T. Varadiah vs Raja Kumara Venkata Perumal Raja ... on 11 November, 1913
Mr. L. A. Govindaraghava Aiyar quoted against this case of T. Varadiah v. Raja Kumara Venkata Perumal 21 Ind. Cas. 782 : 26 M.L.J. 83 : 14 M.L.T. 530 : (1914) M.W.N. 157. a judgment of mine as a single Judge, in which I expressed an opinion (following cases decided before the new Code came into force) that the amendment of an execution petition could not be allowed after it had once been filed. In that earlier case Section 153 of the new Civil Procedure Code was not brought to my notice and as at present advised, I am inclined to give the fullest powers allowing amendments to Courts, though, of course, the Courts must also possess a discretion not to allow such amendments under particular circumstances.
The Limitation Act, 1963
A.R.R.M.S.V. Sevugan Chetty vs Krishna Aiyangar And Anr. on 25 October, 1911
3. Finally, it is said that Execution Petition No. 139 of 1905 which sought for the sale of properties not included in the mortgage was within time, and we are asked to treat the present petition of 1910 which seeks for the sale of other properties as part of the petition of 1905. Two decisions, Sevugam Chetty v. Krishna Aiyangar 13 Ind. Cas.
Section 14 in The Limitation Act, 1963 [Entire Act]
Section 48 in The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [Entire Act]
Rebala Ramana Reddi vs Rebala Babu Reddi And Ors. on 26 November, 1912
7. With the greatest respect, I find myself unable to agree with some of the observations contra in the case of Rabala Ramana Reddi v. Rabala Babu Reddi 18 Ind. Cas. 586 : 24 M.L.J. 96 : (1913) M.W.N. 114 : 37 M. 186 : 13 M.L.T. 79.