Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 9 of 9 (0.30 seconds)

Haji Rahim Bux And Sons And Ors. vs Firm Samiullah And Sons on 18 December, 1962

In yet another case of the Allahabad High Court reported in Haji Rahim Bux and Sons v. Firm Samiullah and Sons, AIR 1963 All 320 a Division Bench consisting of Chief Justice Desai and Mr. Justice S.D. Singh interpreted the words of O. 21, R. 90, by saying that the word 'entertain' meant not 'receive' or 'accept' but 'proceed to consider on merits' or 'adjudicate upon'.
Allahabad High Court Cites 30 - Cited by 43 - Full Document

Zila Parishad, Budaun And Ors. vs Brahma Rishi Sharma on 17 November, 1969

VI. If any such misc. appeal is filed, the same can be considered only on the evidence already on record before the trial court unless the additional evidence is received by the appellate court under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC as per the law by recording reasons. In other words, in such misc. appeal the appellant cannot rely on the evidence filed by him in the appellate court without the same having not been allowed by the misc. court under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC as per the law laid down by the Hon'ble Full Bench in the case of Zila Parishad, Budaun (supra).
Allahabad High Court Cites 9 - Cited by 32 - S N Dwivedi - Full Document

A. Venkatasubbiah Naidu vs S. Chellappan And Ors on 19 September, 2000

15. In the present case, admittedly, the appeal was filed without appearing before the trial court that too prior to the date fixed before the trial court, which was fixed for 28.2.2020. The misc. appeal was filed on 20.8.2020 and was decided on 27.8.2020. Therefore, the order passed in misc. appeal is totally without jurisdiction as in view of A. Venkatasubbiah Naidu (supra), the misc. appeal itself was not maintainable.
Supreme Court of India Cites 3 - Cited by 451 - Full Document
1