Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 9 of 9 (0.21 seconds)Section 115 in The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [Entire Act]
The Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948
Md. Isha Haque vs Md. Azadur Rahman Hazarika And Ors. on 29 January, 1993
Learned Counsel for the petitioner also relied upon the judgment reported in Md. Isha Haque v. Md. Azadur Rahman Hazrika A.I.R. 1993 Gait. 72, for the proposition that a decree granted without discussion existence of the grounds for eviction mentioned under the provisions of the Act can be set aside under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
A. Ali Akbar vs The District Munsiff, Pattukottai And ... on 2 September, 1992
13. Mr. N.R. Chandran, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner referred to the judgment A. Ali. Akbar v. District Munsiff, Pattukottai , AR. Lakshmanan, J. In that case is a suit filed by the plaintiff for injunction restricting the performance of religious rights at a particular place, there was an ex pane decree. The defendant had not filed an appeal. The third party who is aggrieved with the ex pane decree passed by the trial court filed C.R.P. No. 2230 of 1992 in this Court for issue of a certiorari for quashing the order under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. In the facts and circumstances, this Court held that a third party, a member of the community aggrieved by such restriction can file petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for correcting the illegality of the judgment of the trial court.
The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
Babhutmal Raichand Oswal vs Laxmibai Raghunath Tarte on 19 November, 1971
In the judgment in Babhutmal v. Laxmibai , the Supreme Court held that the power of superintendence of High Court under Article 227 being extraordinary is to be exercised most sparingly and only in appropriate cases. This power, as in the case of certiorari jurisdiction, cannot be invoked to correct as error of fact which only a superior court can be in exercise of its statutory power as a court of appeal. The High Court cannot in guise of exercising its jurisdiction under Article 227 convert itself into a Court of Appeal when the legislature has not conferred a right of appeal and made the decision of the subordinate court or tribunal final on facts. The High Court cannot, while exercising jurisdiction under Article 227 interfere with findings of fact recorded by the Subordinate Court or tribunal. Its function is limited to seeing that the Subordinate Court or tribunal functions within the limits of its authority.
Sushil Kumar Metha vs Gobind Ram Bohra on 10 November, 1989
In that decision, the learned single judge of Gauhati High Court followed the judgment reported in Sushil Kumar Metha v. Gobind Ram Bohra .
The Transfer Of Property Act, 1882
1