Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 7 of 7 (0.18 seconds)Balasubramania Iyer vs Subbiah Thevar And Anr. on 11 December, 1963
9.Though there is no dispute with regard to the ratio laid down in the judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellant, since the facts and circumstances of the present case are different, the said judgments are not applicable to the present case.
Mahendra Manilal Nanavati vs Sushila Mahendra Nanavati on 18 March, 1964
In cases where additional evidence is required to be taken in the event of any one of the clause of Sub-rule (1) of Rule 27 being attracted such additional evidence oral or documentary, is allowed to be produced either before the appellate court itself or by directing any court subordinate to the appellate court to receive such evidence and send it to the appellate court. In 1976, Rule 23-A has been inserted in Order 41 which provides for a remand by an appellate court hearing an appeal against a decree if (i) the trial court disposed of the case otherwise than on a preliminary point, and (ii) the decree is reversed in appeal and a retrial is considered necessary. On twin conditions being satisfied, the appellate court can exercise the same power of remand under Rule 23-A as it is under Rule 23. After the amendment all the cases of wholesale remand are covered by Rule 23 and 23-A. In view of the express provisions of these rules, the High Court cannot have recourse to its inherent powers to make a remand because as held in Mahendra Manilal Nanavati v. Sushila Mahendra Nanavati (AIR 1965 SC 364 : 66 Bom LR 681), it is well settled that inherent powers can be availed of ex debito justitiae only in the absence of express provisions in the Code. It is only in exceptional cases where the court may now exercise the power of remand de hors the Rules 23 and 23-A. To wit the superior court, if it finds that the judgment under appeal has not disposed of the case satisfactorily in the manner required by Order 20 Rule 3 or Order 11 Rule 31 of the CPC and hence it is no judgment in the eye of law, it may set aside the same and send the matter back for re-writing the judgment so as to protect valuable rights of the parties. An appellate court should be circumspect in ordering a remand when the case is not covered either by Rule 23 or Rule 23-A or Rule 25 of the CPC. An unwarranted order of remand gives the litigation an undeserved lease of life and, therefore must be avoided.
Ashwin Kumar K. Patel vs Upendra J. Patel & Others on 11 March, 1999
(i)AIR 1999 Supreme Court 1125 [Ashwinkumar K.Patel vs. Upendra J.Patel and others] wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as follows:
Section 151 in The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [Entire Act]
P. Purushottam Reddy And Anr vs Pratap Steels Ltd on 21 January, 2002
(ii)(2002) 2 Supreme Court Cases 686 [P.Purushottam Reddy and another vs. Pratap Steels Ltd.,] wherein the Apex Court held as follows:
The Code Of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act, 1956
1