Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 9 of 9 (0.42 seconds)
Lakhan Prasad Gupta & Ors vs Dumraon Properties Enterprises on 29 February, 2012 cites

Kiran Singh And Others vs Chaman Paswan And Others on 14 April, 1954

13. Now in second appeal, against the judgment and decree passed in pursuance to the remand order by this Court, the questions which have been finally decided between the parties before the matter was remitted back to the appellate court below by this Court, cannot be allowed to be reopened. It is manifest that in view of the dispute of title raised by the defendant, the plaintiff amended the relief portion by adding the relief with regard to adjudication of title. The parties thereafter, went to trial and it is not the case of the defendant that they raised any objection to the valuation of the suit 13 13 / 19 during trial or before passing of judgment by trial court after the addition of the relief with regard to title. The two suits were decreed and thereafter the appellate court set aside the judgment and decree and remanded the matter back to the trial court in view of the dispute with regard to the valuation raised by the defendant. However, the said remand order had been set aside by this Court with specific direction to the appellate court to consider the appeal on merits. Now in second appeal against the dismissal of their appeals, the defendant-appellants have sought to rake up the same question regarding the valuation of the suit. During the course of argument, it could not be established on behalf of the appellants that any prejudice had been caused to the appellants because of the trial of the suit by the Court of Additional Munsif and the only submission made in this regard was that the appellants have been deprived of the trial by the Court of Sub Judge which according to the appellants had definitely better intellect. But in view of the principle in this regard as laid down by the apex court in the decision reported in AIR 1954 SC 340(Kiran Singh & Ors. Vs. Chaman Paswan & Ors.), this submission has no substance.
Supreme Court of India Cites 13 - Cited by 1029 - Full Document

P. R. Nayak vs Union Of India on 7 December, 1971

At the stage of hearing of the second appeal, for the first time this specific objection has been raised by the defendant with the submission that this fact regarding the discrepancy in the dates is apparent from the Kiraynama itself and no evidence is required in this regard. This may be true but the fact remains that this question, which is essentially a question of fact, has never been raised during the suit or appeal and the plaintiff thus, had no opportunity to place his defence in this regard. The jurisdiction of a second appellate court in entertaining a new plea of fact is very limited. Their Lordships of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Venkat Ramana Devaru Vs. State of Masoor (AIR 1958 SC 255) and in the case of P.R. Nayak Vs. Union of India (AIR 1972 SC 554) have succinctly laid down the law in this regard to the effect that the object of requiring a party to put forward his pleas in the pleadings is to enable the opposite party to controvert them and to adduce evidence in support of his case and it has been further held that "it would be neither legal nor just to refer to evidence adduced with reference to a matter which was actually in issue and on the basis of that evidence, to come to a finding on a matter which was not in issue, and decide the rights of parties on the basis of that finding"
Supreme Court of India Cites 13 - Cited by 66 - I D Dua - Full Document

Dumraon Properties And Enterprises (P) ... vs Bihari Lal Gupta And Ors. on 29 July, 2004

Moreover, this aspect regarding the prejudice has also been discussed in detail in the matter of Dumraon Properties and Enterprises (P) Ltd. (Supra) by this Court and it was held that no prejudice could be caused to the appellants by the trial of 14 14 / 19 the suit by the Court of Additional Munsif. Thus, I find no substance in the substantial question of law with regard to the valuation of the suit and jurisdiction of the Munsif and the same is accordingly, decided against the appellants.
Patna High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 3 - S K Katriar - Full Document
1