Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 6 of 6 (0.22 seconds)Section 146 in The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [Entire Act]
Balwant Singh (Dead) vs Jagdish Singh & Ors on 8 July, 2010
The concepts of liberal approach and reasonableness
in exercise of the discretion by the Courts in condoning delay, have
been again stated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court Court in the case of
Balwant Singh Vs. Jagdish Singh, (2010) 8 SCC 685, as follows:-
Mukesh Kumar And Ors vs Col. Harbans Waraich And Ors on 27 October, 1999
In the obtaining facts and circumstances, reliance on Order 1
Rule 10 of CPC read with Order 41 Rule 33 CPC justifying filing of
the instant application, in the opinion of this Court, is misplaced and
the said provision cannot be pressed into service, if person otherwise
competent to invoke appellate jurisdiction either by filing appeal or
cross objection if he had chosen to sit tight over the matter. Despite
having suffered decree, a co-defendant at belated stage cannot seek
transposition as an appellant. True it is that appellate Court has ample
powers to pass such judgment and decrees against the parties to the
suit to do complete justice between parties, but such power is not
omnipresent and shall not cover all contingencies under the sky.
More so, if exercise of such powers; akin to inherent power, is
perceived in the instant case, it shall be in conflict with substantive
right of a party accrued by efflux of period under law of limitation, as
this Court finds substantial force in the submission advanced by Shri
Kale, learned counsel for respondent No.1 that after expiry of period
of limitation prescribed for filing appeal and cross objection, such an
application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC for transposition by passage
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH BENCH AT INDORE
of time cannot be permitted as the same shall seriously jeopardize the
right accrued to respondent No.1. Learned counsel for respondent
No.1 placed reliance on the judgment of Supreme Court in the case of
Mukesh Kumar and Ors. vs. Col. Harbans waraich and Ors.
reported in 1991 9 SCC 380. In the opinion of this Court, the
judgment is of no assistance to respondent No.1 though the principle
of law underlined judgment is beyond any cavil of doubt.
Consequently, the I.A. No.5611/2017 is rejected.
Article 116 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
The Limitation Act, 1963
1