Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 27 (0.69 seconds)
S.M. Deshmukh vs Ganesh Krishnaji Khare on 29 June, 1973 cites

Jai Behram vs Kedar Nath Marwari on 19 June, 1922

The old Section 583 was re-enacted in Section 144 with inter alia the following changes, the words "in appeal" in the old Section 583 were deleted and section 144 was transferred to Part XI "Miscellaneous" from its position in the Chapter XLI in the old Code headed "of appeals from Original Decree", the words "the Court of first instance" were added in Sub-Section (i), Further though Section 144 in terms applied only where a decree was varied or reversed, the Privy Council in" Jai Behram v. Kedar Nath Marwari (1922) 49 Ind App 351 at p.355 =25 Bom LR 643 = (AIR 1922 PC 269) on the analogy of Section 144 in terms applied only where a decree was varied or reversed, the Privy Counsel in Jai Behram v. Kedar Nath Marwari (1922) 49 Ind App 351 at p.355 - 25 Bom LR 643 = (AIR 1922 PC 269) on the analogy of Section 144 granted restitution where an order of sale made in execution of a decree was set aside by the same Court between the same parties observing that the duty or jurisdiction of the Court to act rightly land fairly in the circumstances towards all parties involved. Subsequently by the Code of Civil Procedure (amendment) Act, 56 the words "or an order" were added in Section 144(1) thereby widening its scope.
Bombay High Court Cites 0 - Cited by 24 - Full Document

Maqbool Alam Khan vs Mst. Khodaija & Ors on 4 February, 1966

However in Maqbool Alam's case the compromise decree sub-stantially reversing the earlier decree was passed in a subsequent suit before the same court and, therefore, no inconsistency could be said to have arisen between Section 37 and 38 and Section 144 of the Code. So far as the actual form for restitution was concerned. But there may arise such an inconsistency if a case is reversed in a subsequent suit or proceeding or proceeding by another Court of competent jurisdiction. This may be illustrated as follows:- a landlord in an ejectment suit filed in Bombay Small Causes Court obtains a decree against a tenant; the tenant then files a suit in Bombay City Civil Court against the landlord for a declaration that the ejectment decree is null and void on the ground that the premises in question are not governed by the Bombay Rent Act and his suit succeeds. If, in the meanwhile, the landlord had executed the decree and obtained possession of the demised premises the question as to which Court is competent to grant restitution of possession may create difficulty. This shows the need for Legislature to remove uncertainty by suitably amending Section 144. Our attention has been drawn to the fact that a Bill No. XXXIV of 1968 introduced in Rajya Sabha on 18th December 1968 was for amending the present Civil Procedure Code and the same contains provisions for enlarging the scope of Section 144 so far as setting aside or modification of a decree by that passed in a subsequent suit is concerned. In the present case, however, no such inconsistency is involved on the basis of the present application under Section 144 being one for execution of the order setting aside the ex parte decree. In the instant case the Court in which the suit was instituted and which passed ex parte decree and the court which aside such decree is the same i.e. Bombay Small Cause Court exercising jurisdiction under Section 28(1) of the Bombay Rent Act.
Supreme Court of India Cites 5 - Cited by 41 - R S Bachawat - Full Document
1   2 3 Next