Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 15 (0.19 seconds)The Limitation Act, 1963
Article 176 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Section 2 in The Limitation Act, 1963 [Entire Act]
Monghibai vs Cooverji Umersey on 2 May, 1939
Of course where both the assignor and the assignee are parties to the suit, the decree cannot be passed in favour of the assignor and must be passed in favour of the assignee and such a case is dealt with by Lord Porter in Monghibai v. Cooverji Umersey .
Article 181 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Vencatanarayana Pillai vs Subbammal And Anr. on 26 March, 1909
AIR 1919 Mad 479--on which reliance was placed by Banerjee J.--by Sadasiva J. the Privy Council in Venkatanarayana Pillai v. Subbammal, 42 Ind App 125: (AIR 1915 PC 124) based their decision that if the reversioner who was conducting the suit dies, the next man is entitled to come in for the purpose of continuing the conduct of the suit on the broad ground, namely, that he was already a party to the suit though the conduct of it was in the hands of the first reversioner and consequentially he was entitled to continue the suit after the plaintiff's death.
Nalinakhya Bysack vs Shyam Sunder Haldar And Others on 29 January, 1953
39. Mr. Bhabra drew our attention to the marginal note in Order XXII Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure to the effect that the procedure provided in this rule is procedure in case of assignment before final order in suit. He has tried to convince us that there must be a final order before it can be said that the suit has ceased to exist for the purpose of leave being given. I can find no substance in this contention. The marginal note can be and often is of great assistance for the interpretation of the actual words used in the section. But as was laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Nalinakhya Bysack v. Shyam Sunder Haldar. when dealing with the marginal note of Section 18 of the West Bengal Premises Rent Control Act, the indication of the marginal note must yield to the clear words in the section itself. In the present case, Rule 10 of Order XXII is, in my opinion, abundantly clear that a suit in order to be continued must be a live suit and as under the present Code as distinct from the previous Code no actual order of abatement need be passed by the Court and the suit abates even in the absence of the order by operation of law, the result is inevitable that even though no final order has actually been made in the suit, no order to continue the suit can be made, once the suit has abated.
Article 171 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Rajaram Bhagwat vs Jibai, Widow Of Khan Mahomed on 15 September, 1884
This decision was under Sections 368 and 372 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1882 which correspond to Order XXII, Rules 4 and 10 of the present Code of Civil Procedure. I entirely agree that the right of an assignee to apply under Order XXII, Rule 10, of the Code of Civil Procedure in the event of assignment pendente life is not taken away by the further event of the subsequent death of the assignor; but the question whether the right of the assignee to apply for leave to carry on the suit or the appeal continues in the larger event of the abatement of the suit did not arise and was not considered by the Court in the above case. As a matter of fact, there was no question of any abatement of the appeal in the case. It may also be pointed out that" under Section 366 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1882, before the suit could abate the Court had to pass an order that the suit shall abate.