Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 10 (0.38 seconds)
Pooranchand Mulchand Jain vs Komalchand Beniprasad Jain on 11 July, 1961 cites

Sha Mulchand & Co. Ltd.(In Liquidation) vs Jawahar Mills Ltd on 9 December, 1952

7. Now, if as we think, the dismissal in default of an application for the restoration of a suit under Order 9 Rule 9 C. P. C. can be set aside by resort to Section 151, C. P. C., then there is no question of any limitation for an application made to invoke the inherent powers of the Court. Section 151 does not deal with any application, nor docs it lay down procedure for any application. It is a provision recognising the inherent power of the court to act ex debito justitiae. An application invoking this power is not one which a party is required to make under any provisions of the Code for setting in motion any machinery of the Court. Therefore it is not governed by Article 181 or any other Article of the Limitation Act. As has been held by the Supreme Court in Sha Mulchand and Co. Ltd. v. Jawahar Mills Ltd., AIR 1953 SC 98 Article 181 governs only the applications under the Code of Civil Procedure and has to be read as if the words 'under the Code' were added in the first column of the article. It follows therefore that the application contemplated by Article 181 is one which a party has to make for the machinery of the Court to be set in motion under the provisions of the Code and the application has to be made within three years from the date when the right to apply accrues.
Supreme Court of India Cites 24 - Cited by 106 - Full Document

Doma Choudhary And Ors. vs Ram Naresh Lal And Ors. on 7 November, 1958

It seems to us unnecessary to examine some decisions in which it has been held that an appeal lies under Order 43 Rule 1(c) from an order rejecting for default an application udder Rule 9, (See Doma Chandhary V. Ram Naresh Lal, AIR 1959 Pat 121 (FB) and cases noted in Chitale's Civil Procedure Code, volume II, under note (2) to Order 9 (General). These decisions and others making Order 9 Rule 9 applicable for setting aside an order rejecting for default an application for restoration of a suit under Order 9. Rule 9 C.P.C. overlook the position that when an appeal is preferred against an order rejecting for default an application under Rule 9 for the restoration of a suit, the appeal is not against the order to set aside the dismissal of a suit within the meaning of Order 43 Rule 1(c), that Section 141 deals with procedure alone and not with any substantive rights, and that the remedy under Order 9 Rule 9 C.P.C. is not a matter of procedure but is a substantive right.
Patna High Court Cites 22 - Cited by 20 - V Ramaswami - Full Document

Pandit Pitambar Lal vs Dodee Singh on 29 January, 1924

2. The petitioner Pooranchand's suit was dismissed for default in appearance under Order 9 Rule 8 C. P. C. He then filed an application under Rule 9 for restoration. This application for restoration was itself dismissed for default of appearance on 3rd September 1959. Thereupon on 30th November 1959 the petitioner made an application for setting aside the dismissal of his application for restoration. This application was rejected by the trial Court on the ground of limitation relying on Pitambar Lal v. Dodee Singh, ILR 46 All 319: (AIR 1924 All 503).
Allahabad High Court Cites 1 - Cited by 8 - Full Document
1