Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 3 of 3 (0.18 seconds)
Halayudh And Anr. vs Tek Chand And Ors. on 2 April, 1953 cites

Karri Bapanna And Anr. vs Sunkari Yerramma And Ors. on 22 February, 1923

This is riot correct. The learned counsel admitted that the plaintiffs had to prove that they had spent Rs. 12,000/- in completing the work. This point has been clearly brought out in the second issue. He cited a number of rulings, e.g.--'Raghuraj Singh', v. Majid-un-nissa', A. I. R. 1925 Oudh 692 (B);--'Bhup Singh v. Prem Singh', AIR 1924 Lah 362 (C)--'Kari Bapanna v. Sunkari Yerramma', AIR 1923 Mad 718 (D);--'Tin Maung v. Mg. Po Htoo', AIR 1927 Rang 192 (E)',--'Sundara Rama Iyer v. Sathianathan', AIR 1927 Mad 1190 (E) and--'Province of Bihar v. Choudhary Balam Singh', AIR 1950 Pat 356' (G). None of these cases, how-ever, justified a remand, as in the present case, where the party was given another opportunity to prove its case although it failed to do so in the trial Court without any justification and in ispite of a clear issue. The order of remand in the present case was, therefore wholly unjustified. Furthermore, the learned counsel for the plaintiffs-respondents did not point out any evidence on the record from which it could be said that the plaintiffs had proved any part of their claim for compensation. Their suit was, therefore, liable to dismissal on findings on both the issues.
Madras High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 10 - Full Document

Jainul Abideen Marakayar And Ors. vs Habibulla Sahib on 6 September, 1927

In support of this argument the learned counsel cited--'Jainul Ahideen Marakayar v. Habibullah Sahib', A. I. R. 1928 Mad 430 (H). That ruling interprets the relevant law, i. e. Sub-section (2) of Section 105, C. P. C., which lays down that where any party aggrieved, by an order of remand made after the commencement of the Code from which an appeal lies does not appeal therefrom, he shall thereafter be precluded from disputing its correctness. On the face of it, if the course suggested by the learned counsel for the plaintiffs-respondents had been followed by the defendants they would have been precluded from disputing the correctness of the order of remand. All that the ruling laid down was that under the said provision the correctness of the order of remand could be questioned on only two grounds, i. e. that the remand itself was illegal as the decision of the first Court was not on a preliminary point, or that the decision of the preliminary point by the appellate Court was erroneous. Supposing the order of remand passed by the lower appellate Court in this case was one under Order 41 Rule 23, C. P. C., the present appeals would be competent according to this very ruling because the appeals impeached the correctness of the order of remand on the ground that the decision of the lower appellate Court on the preliminary point which was the subject-matter of the first issue was not correct. The objection raised by the learned counsel for the respondents has, therefore, no force. It may, however, be stated, here in passing that the order of remand passed by the learned District Judge was not under Order 41 Rule 23 since the trial Court had not disposed of the suit on a preliminary point but had, on the contrary, decided all the issues that arose for determination.
Madras High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 6 - Full Document

K. V. Sundara Rama Iyer And Ors. vs Sathianathan And Ors. on 22 February, 1927

This is riot correct. The learned counsel admitted that the plaintiffs had to prove that they had spent Rs. 12,000/- in completing the work. This point has been clearly brought out in the second issue. He cited a number of rulings, e.g.--'Raghuraj Singh', v. Majid-un-nissa', A. I. R. 1925 Oudh 692 (B);--'Bhup Singh v. Prem Singh', AIR 1924 Lah 362 (C)--'Kari Bapanna v. Sunkari Yerramma', AIR 1923 Mad 718 (D);--'Tin Maung v. Mg. Po Htoo', AIR 1927 Rang 192 (E)',--'Sundara Rama Iyer v. Sathianathan', AIR 1927 Mad 1190 (E) and--'Province of Bihar v. Choudhary Balam Singh', AIR 1950 Pat 356' (G). None of these cases, how-ever, justified a remand, as in the present case, where the party was given another opportunity to prove its case although it failed to do so in the trial Court without any justification and in ispite of a clear issue. The order of remand in the present case was, therefore wholly unjustified. Furthermore, the learned counsel for the plaintiffs-respondents did not point out any evidence on the record from which it could be said that the plaintiffs had proved any part of their claim for compensation. Their suit was, therefore, liable to dismissal on findings on both the issues.
Madras High Court Cites 0 - Cited by 1 - Full Document
1