Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 6 of 6 (0.25 seconds)Shah Babulal Khimji vs Jayaben D. Kania And Anr on 10 August, 1981
3. Arguments have been rebutted. It is submitted that the
order dated 19.02.2010 was a review petition which had been
partly allowed and partly dismissed ; the very fact that there was
a partial allowance of the review petition makes it permissible for
an appeal to be maintained under Order XLIII Rule 1 (w) of the
Code. The second submission is that since the impugned order
dated 31.08.2010 has dismissed the suit of the plaintiff, the
remedy is not a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution. On
the applicability of the Judgment of Shah Babulal Khimji (Supra),
learned counsel for the respondents has fairly conceded that the
Additional District Judge in the impugned order dated 31.08.2010
has misapplied this judgment and the ratio of this judgment in fact
related to the Letter Patent Appeal alone.
Waryam Singh And Another vs Amarnath And Another on 19 January, 1954
10. What necessarily follows is that the Court of Additional
District Judge had assumed the appellate jurisdiction under Order
XLIII of the Code when it was clearly not vested with him. An
order passed by a Court who is not competent to pass it is an
order void ab initio; it has no sanctity. This is a patent illegality.
The Apex Court in AIR 1954 Supreme Court 215 Waryam Singh &
Anr. Vs. Amarnath and Another has held that general
superintendence of power vested in the High Court under Article
227 of the Constitution is a power which the High Court has over
all courts and tribunals; it is the duty of the High Court to ensure
that they do their duty as required and they do it in a legal
manner. Where the error of law is apparent on the face of record,
the Court is called upon to interfere.
Section 10 in The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [Entire Act]
Section 104 in The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [Entire Act]
The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
1