Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 8 of 8 (0.53 seconds)Section 115 in The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [Entire Act]
Raja Debi Bakhsh Singh vs Habib Shah on 29 April, 1913
It was pointed out by the Privy Council in Raja Debi Bakhsh Singh v. Habib Shah, 40 Ind App 151 at p. 155 (PC) that quite apart from Section 151, any court might have rightly considered itself to possess an inherent power to rectify the mistake which had been inadvertently made.
Doma Choudhary And Ors. vs Ram Naresh Lal And Ors. on 7 November, 1958
3. At the hearing of the application two witnesses (i) the clerk of the advocate and (ii) the widow of Rambilash Koeri were examined in support of the allegations made in the restoration, application. The learned Subordinate Judge found the allegations made in the restoration application to be correct. Before him it was however, canvassed that the application for restoration was not maintainable in law and reliance was placed on a Full Bench decision of this Court in Doma Choudhary v. Ram Naresh Lal AIR 1959 Pat 121. But having considered the evidence and the circumstances of the case, the learned Subordinate Judge felt that the court should exercise its inherent powers in the ends of justice in this case as otherwise there would be miscarriage of justice. In that view of the matter, the restoration application was allowed, the order of dismissal of miscellaneous case No. 52 of 1966 was set aside and the case was restored to its original file. Hence, the petitioner has come up to this Court in revision.
The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
Keshardeo Chamria vs Radha Kissen Chamria And Othersradha ... on 30 October, 1952
The Supreme Court also in Keshardeo Chamria v. Radhakissen Chamria, AIR 1953 SC 23 = 1953 SCR 136 held that the judge has jurisdiction to correct his own error without entering into discussion of the grounds taken by the parties.
Manohar Lal Chopra vs Rai Bahadur Rao Raja Seth Hiralal on 16 November, 1961
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner, reiterated the same objection which was advanced on his behalf in the court below to the effect that the court below could not entertain an application for the restoration of the miscellaneous case. In support of this contention he relied on a Full Bench decision of this Court In AIR 1959 Pat 121. His argument was that the opposite party could have filed an appeal against the restoration of the miscellaneous case for restoration of the appeal and therefore, the court had no jurisdiction to restore the miscellaneous case under its inherent powers. On the other hand, learned counsel for the opposite party contended that in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in Manohar Lal Chopra v. Rai Bahadur Rao Raja Seth Hiralal, AIR 1962 SC 527 the Full Bench decision of the Patna High Court, referred to above. Is no longer good law. In the Supreme Court a question arose as to whether the court could issue an ad interim injunction under the circumstances which are not covered by Order 39 of the Code if the court was of the opinion that the interest of justice required the issuance of such interim injunction. The Supreme Court held that the courts have inherent jurisdiction to issue temporary injunction in the circumstances which are not covered by the provisions of Order 39 of the Code. The Supreme Court held that Inherent powers are not in any way controlled by the provisions of the Code as has been specifically stated in Section 151 itself but those powers are not to be exercised when their exercise may be in conflict with what had been expressly
provided in the Code or against the intentions of the legislature.
Smt. Ramrati Devi vs Ahmad Behari And Ors. on 11 November, 1966
In support of his contention he relied on a decision of this Court in Ramrati Devi v. Ahmad Behari, AIR 1968 Pat 112 and an unreported decision in Kishori Lal Sao v. Bansi Lal Sao, Civil Revn.
1