Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 16 (0.23 seconds)Section 159 in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
Section 160 in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
Section 115 in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
Baldevdas Shivlal & Anr vs Filmistan Distributors (India) (P) ... on 29 April, 1969
In Baldevdas v. Filmistan Distributors, AIR 1970 SC 406, it is held thus (Para 10):
Major S. S. Khanna vs Brig. F.J. Dillon on 14 August, 1963
In S.S. Khanna v. F.J. Dillon, AIR 1964 SC 497, it is held that the expression "case" is a word of comprehensive import; it includes civil proceedings other than suits and is not restricted by anything contained in the Section to the entirety of the proceedings in a Civil Court. It is also held therein that the power under Section 115, C.P.C. is to keep the Subordinate Courts within the bounds of their jurisdiction and this power is akin to that of a power to issue a writ of certiorari.
Tata Iron & Steel Co. Ltd. vs Rajarishi Exports (P) Ltd. on 6 February, 1978
9. The question whether rejection of the plaintiffs prayer to lead further evidence for proof of document was considered to decide whether the same comes within the ambit of Section 115, C.P.C. and the Orissa High Court in the decision reported in Doshei Dei v. Rama Routa, AIR 1985 Orissa 77, held that such an order is revisable under Section 115, C.P.C. A decision on the question of serving interrogatories on the parties under Order 11, Rule 11, C.P.C. was held to be an order revisable under Section 115, C.P.C. see the decision reported in Tata Iron & Steel Company v. Rajarishi Exports, AIR 1978 Orissa 179.
Doshei Dei And Ors. vs Rama Routa And Ors. on 28 November, 1984
9. The question whether rejection of the plaintiffs prayer to lead further evidence for proof of document was considered to decide whether the same comes within the ambit of Section 115, C.P.C. and the Orissa High Court in the decision reported in Doshei Dei v. Rama Routa, AIR 1985 Orissa 77, held that such an order is revisable under Section 115, C.P.C. A decision on the question of serving interrogatories on the parties under Order 11, Rule 11, C.P.C. was held to be an order revisable under Section 115, C.P.C. see the decision reported in Tata Iron & Steel Company v. Rajarishi Exports, AIR 1978 Orissa 179.
Harish vs Som Nath And Ors. on 1 October, 1981
In Harish v. Som Nath, AIR 1982 Raj 77, it was held that an order dismissing an application to frame additional issue amounts to a "case decided" and an application under Section 115, C.P.C. is held to be maintainable.