Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 25 (0.37 seconds)Article 182 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
The Limitation Act, 1963
Brij Jivan Lal And Anr. vs Shiam Lal And Ors. on 10 August, 1949
6. Wanchoo J. (as he then was) in Brij Jivan Lal v. Shiam Lal (supra) has held as under :--
Jagat Dhish Bhargava vs Jawahar Lal Bhargava & Others on 5 December, 1960
If a final decree has not been framed, the aggrieved party, who desires to appeal may take recourse to the procedure prescribed in Jagat Dhish v. Jawaharlal Bhargava, AIR 1961 SC 832.
Kanailal Mitra vs Pannasashi Mitra on 21 May, 1954
19. On behalf of the petitioners an argument was advanced that the impugned order of the trial Court was a composite one as by that order it was first held that the suit is abated because of non-bringing on record the two legal representatives of the deceased-plaintiff and by the same order it has also disposed of the suit. Relying on the decision in Kanailal Mitra v. Pannasashi Mitra, AIR 1954 Cal 588, it was urged that the plaintiff has a right to come up in revision from the first part of the order whereby the trial Court has held that the suit has abated notwithstanding that the latter part of the order may amount to a decree. It was in these circumstances that the two questions were referred to a larger Bench.
Dolai Molliko & Ors vs Krushna Chandra Patnaik & Ors on 23 March, 1966
In Dolai Maliko's case (supra) their Lordships had approved of the decision in Mohammad Zafarvab Khan v. Abdul Razzac Khan, AIR 1928 All 532. It was held that when by an order which has become final, a certain person's name which has been brought on record in an appeal as the legal representative of the deceased appellant, it is not open to the respondent to urge that the appeal has abated, because some other heirs have been left out.
Muhammad Zafaryab Khan vs Abdul Razzac Khan And Ors. on 15 May, 1928
In Dolai Maliko's case (supra) their Lordships had approved of the decision in Mohammad Zafarvab Khan v. Abdul Razzac Khan, AIR 1928 All 532. It was held that when by an order which has become final, a certain person's name which has been brought on record in an appeal as the legal representative of the deceased appellant, it is not open to the respondent to urge that the appeal has abated, because some other heirs have been left out.