Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 16 (0.18 seconds)Article 227 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Radha Mohan Datt, Silk Merchant vs Abbas Ali Biswas And Ors. on 3 February, 1931
There is a consensus of opinion amongst the High Courts that the word 'case' in this context is wider than the term 'suit' or appeal and that an application for leave to suet as pauper, an application to set aside an 'ex parts' decree or to restore a suit dismissed for default and tha like, which are in the nature of 'independent proceedings', is a 'case' within the meaning of Section 115 (cf. Radha Mohan v. Abbas Ali .
V.M. Abdul Rahman vs D.K. Cassim And Sons on 19 December, 1932
It is true that a suit is not completely decided unless there is a 'decree' within the meaning of Section 2(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure, or a 'final order1 which has been explained by the Privy Council as 'an order which finally disposes of the rights of the parties', though it is not a 'decree' (Abdul Rahman v. D. K. Cassim, and Sons . Now, as the definition of 'order' in Section 2(14) shows, the word 'decision' is wides than the word 'decree' and all decisions of the Court which are not 'decrees' are 'orders', which include both final and interlocutory orders. It follows that an interlocutory order may claim to be a 'decision' within the meaning of the expression 'case detided' in Section 115 of the Code.
Kariya Goundan And Anr. vs Tirukkaivelu Chetty And Ors. on 3 December, 1924
(c) Though no decision has gone to the extent of holding that all interlocutory orders in a suit or other proceeding are revisable under Section 115, an order allowing or amending has been brought within the ambit of tha expression 'case decided' by the Madras High Court in Kariya v. Tirukkaivelu, AIR 1925 Mad.
Shah Shantilal Chunilal vs Shah Shantilal Fulchand And Anr. on 30 August, 1962
258(F. B.); by the Gujarat High Court in Shantilal Chunilal v. Shantilal Fulchand., .
Mt. Suraj Pali vs Ariya Pretinidhi Sabha on 11 May, 1936
Evert the Full Bench of the Allahabad High Court in Mt. Suraj Pali v. Ariya Pratinidhi Sabha , which took the view that an order of amendment of 3 pleading under 0. 6, r. 17 was not a 'case decided' was constrained to concftde that amendments under other provisions of the Code, e. b. , by way of substitulion or addition of parties, striking off pleadings, constituted a 'case decided' within the meaning of sec.- 115. A larger scope for admitting other interlocutory orders into the fold of sec. 115 has been opened by the later Full Bench of the Allahabad High Court in (S) (FB).
Waryam Singh And Another vs Amarnath And Another on 19 January, 1954
(e) There is a respectable body of cases wrere It has been held that, even if it be assumed that the language of Section 115 of the C. P. Code would not comprehend an Interlocutory order, such as an amendment of pleading, the High Court has ample power to interfere, in proper cases, in exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction under Section 107 of the Government of India Act, 1915 . This provision of the Act of 1915 has been re-habilitated in Article 227 of 'our' Constitution and, under that Article, it is the constitutional burden of the High Court to interfere where there has been a defect of juris-diction or refusal to exercise jurisdiction (vide Waryam v. Amarnath, ; Civil Appeal No. 602 of 1951, D/- 16-1-1962 (SC), S. M, S. SheiK Jalal-ud-Din v. S. K. Sheik Jalal-ud-Din; Dahya Lal v. Rasul-Mahomed Abdul Rahim, Civil Appeal No. 516 of 1960 (SC) ).
Dahya Lal And Others vs Rasul Mohammed Abdul Rahim on 3 May, 1962
(e) There is a respectable body of cases wrere It has been held that, even if it be assumed that the language of Section 115 of the C. P. Code would not comprehend an Interlocutory order, such as an amendment of pleading, the High Court has ample power to interfere, in proper cases, in exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction under Section 107 of the Government of India Act, 1915 . This provision of the Act of 1915 has been re-habilitated in Article 227 of 'our' Constitution and, under that Article, it is the constitutional burden of the High Court to interfere where there has been a defect of juris-diction or refusal to exercise jurisdiction (vide Waryam v. Amarnath, ; Civil Appeal No. 602 of 1951, D/- 16-1-1962 (SC), S. M, S. SheiK Jalal-ud-Din v. S. K. Sheik Jalal-ud-Din; Dahya Lal v. Rasul-Mahomed Abdul Rahim, Civil Appeal No. 516 of 1960 (SC) ).
S. Barrow vs State Of U.P. And Anr. on 30 July, 1957
There is no reference in Article 227 to final or Inter-locutory orders, and the High Court can exercise this power, even 'suo motu' (vide Barrow v. State of U. P., ; Faqirchand v. Gopichand, , to keep the subordinate courts and tribu-nals "within the bounds of their authority, to see that they do what their duty required and that they do it In a legal manner".