Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 11 (0.51 seconds)Article 227 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
R.Rathinavel Chettiar And Anr vs Sivaraman And Ors on 31 March, 1999
12. The learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Rathinavel Chettiar v. V.Sivaraman, reported in 1999 (II) CTC 593 and K.S.Bhoopathy v. Kokila, reported in (2000) 5 SCC 458 to substantiate his contention that under Order 23 Rule 1(3) CPC permission to withdraw suit with leave to file a fresh suit should not be given by a Court in a mechanical manner. It is also stated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that in the absence of any order made under Order 23 Rule 1 CPC, giving liberty to file a fresh suit on the very same cause of action, a fresh suit cannot be maintained. Regarding the aforesaid legal proposition, there can be no second opinion at all. But this legal position has got no application to the facts of this case for the reasons, which I have already discussed.
K.S. Bhoopathy And Ors vs Kokila And Ors on 8 May, 2000
12. The learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Rathinavel Chettiar v. V.Sivaraman, reported in 1999 (II) CTC 593 and K.S.Bhoopathy v. Kokila, reported in (2000) 5 SCC 458 to substantiate his contention that under Order 23 Rule 1(3) CPC permission to withdraw suit with leave to file a fresh suit should not be given by a Court in a mechanical manner. It is also stated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that in the absence of any order made under Order 23 Rule 1 CPC, giving liberty to file a fresh suit on the very same cause of action, a fresh suit cannot be maintained. Regarding the aforesaid legal proposition, there can be no second opinion at all. But this legal position has got no application to the facts of this case for the reasons, which I have already discussed.
Ranipet Municipality Rep. By Its Comer. ... vs M. Shamsheerkhan on 17 April, 1997
13. The learned counsel nextly relied upon a judgment of this Court in the case of Ranipet Municipality v. M.Shansheerkhan, reported in 1998 (I) CTC 66. That is also a case relating to a civil suit where on the very same cause of action number of suits were filed; the last such litigation was quashed by this Court, by invoking its power of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. In my considered opinion, the principles stated in the said case have got no application to the present case at all. As I have already stated, here, the marital tie is sought to be un-tied by the respondent by making certain allegations in terms of Section 13 (1) (ia) of the Act and as I have already pointed out, for filing such a case, order 23 Rule 1 CPC is not at all a bar in view of the fact that those petitions were dismissed as not pressed on joint endorsement made by the parties. Therefore, this judgment will not in any manner go to the rescue of the petitioner.
Section 11 in The Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 [Entire Act]
Section 13 in The Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 [Entire Act]
The Hindu Marriage Act, 1955
Sarguja Transport Service vs State Transport Appellate Tribunal, ... on 12 November, 1986
In this regard, we may usefully refer to the judgement of the Honble Supreme Court in Sarguja Transport Service v. State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Gwalior, AIR 1987 SC 88 wherein the Honble Supreme Court, while dealing with the Order 23, Rule 1 of CPC has underlined the public policy upon which the above rule was founded. In paragraph 7 of the said judgment, the Honble Supreme Court has held as follows:-