Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 12 (0.26 seconds)Section 115 in The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [Entire Act]
Hari Shankar vs Rao Girdhari Lal Chowdhury on 5 December, 1961
In Hari Shankar v. Rao Girdhari Lal Chowdhury [Hari Shankar v. Rao Girdhari Lal Chowdhury, AIR 1963 SC 698] , in paras 9 and 10, this Court laid down the following: (AIR p. 701)
"9. The section we are dealing with, is almost the same as Section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act. That section has been considered by the High Courts in numerous cases and diverse interpretations have been given. The powers that it is said to confer would make a broad spectrum commencing, at one end, with the view that only substantial errors of law can be corrected under it, and ending, at the other, with a power of interference a little better than what an appeal gives. It is useless to discuss those cases in some of which the observations were probably made under compulsion of certain unusual facts.
Trilok Singh Chauhan vs Ram Lal (Dead) Thr. Lrs. on 11 December, 2017
The power under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Court Act though is wider than Section 115 C.P.C. but the very nature of the revisional power is that it is truncated. The Apex Court in the case of Trilok Singh Chauhan Vs. Ram Lal and Others reported in 2018 (2) SCC 566 had the occasion to consider the scope of the revisional powers under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Court Act and by relying upon an earlier decision of the Apex Court in the case of Hari Shanker Vs. Rao Girdhari Lal Chaudhary reported in AIR 1963 SC 698 and a subsequent decision of Mundrilal Vs. Sushila Rani reported in 2007 (8) SCC 609, in paragraphs 15 and 16 has held as under:-
Bell And Co. Ltd. vs Waman Hemraj on 30 July, 1937
It is sufficient to say that we consider that the most accurate exposition of the meaning of such sections is that of Beaumont, C.J. (as he then was) in Bell & Co. Ltd. v. Waman Hemraj [Bell & Co. Ltd. v. Waman Hemraj, 1937 SCC OnLine Bom 99 : (1938) 40 Bom LR 125 : AIR 1938 Bom 223] , where the learned Chief Justice, dealing with Section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, observed: (SCC OnLine Bom paras 3-4)
''3. ... The object of Section 25 is to enable the High Court to see that there has been no miscarriage of justice, that the decision was given according to law.
Shri Mundri Lal vs Smt. Sushila Rani & Anr on 18 September, 2007
16. Another judgment which needs to be noted is judgment of this Court in Mundri Lal v. Sushila Rani [Mundri Lal v. Sushila Rani, (2007) 8 SCC 609] . This Court held that jurisdiction under Section 25 of the 1887 Act, is wider than the revisional jurisdiction under Section 115 CPC. But pure finding of fact based on appreciation of evidence may not be interfered with, in exercise of jurisdiction under Section 25 of the 1887 Act. The Court also explained the circumstances under which, findings can be interfered with in exercise of jurisdiction under Section 25. There are very limited grounds on which there can be interference in exercise of jurisdiction under Section 25; they are, when (i) findings are perverse or (ii) based on no material or (iii) findings have been arrived at upon taking into consideration the inadmissible evidence or (iv) findings have been arrived at without consideration of relevant evidence.
Section 15 in The Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887 [Entire Act]
Technicians Studio Private Ltd vs Lila Ghosh & Anr on 19 September, 1977
In so far as the submission that mere payment of rent would not create a tenancy and the reliance placed onthe case of M/s Technician Studio Pvt. Ltd. (supra) is concerned, it would indicate that the facts of the aforesaid case were quite different.
Section 35 in The Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887 [Entire Act]
Mani Nariman Daruwala Alias Bharucha ... vs Phiroz N. Bhatena And Ors. on 30 April, 1991
It is no doubt true that the jurisdiction of the Court is ascertained by the allegations and averments made in the plaint alone and it is not the defence which is to be looked into for the aforesaid purpose.The decision relied upon by the learned counsel for the revisionist in the cases Sanvarmal Kejriwal (supra) and Mani Nariman Daruwala (Supra) clearly upholds the aforesaid proposition and there is no doubt or quarell to the said proposition. However, in the present facts and circumstances, it is equally true that the plaint has to be considered as a whole and not in piecemeal. The plaintiffs in paragraph 6 while narrating the facts has clearly indicated that though the defendant had filed a frivilous suit but as there was no express or written contract pertaining to the creation of relationship of landlord and tenant and also for the reason that the defendant had issued cheques towards payment of rent which was encashed by the plaintiffs, hence, to remove any doubt, the plaintiffs admit the defendant as their tenant.