Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 6 of 6 (0.43 seconds)
Lakkaraju Somunaidu vs Majji Gangamma And Ors. on 20 September, 1967 cites

The Cannanore Bank, Limited vs Pattarkandy Arayanveettil Madhavi And ... on 3 October, 1941

5. The only contention raised before me was that the order passed in E. A. 37/64 was conclusive and therefore no fresh application under the same rule can be filed for removal of the obstruction. IN support of this contention, the learned Advocate for the petitioner relied upon Cannanore Bank Ltd. v. P. A. Madhavi AIR 1942 Mad 41 (FB) and Suryanarayana v. Ganesulu, . His contention was that although the Full Bench decision is given under Rule 63 of Order XXI C. P. C. and Rule 103 of Order XXI, C. P. C. being identical, the Full Bench ruling applies to the facts of the present case also.
Madras High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 21 - Full Document

Bahadur Khan vs Bari Tala And Anr. on 11 September, 1940

17. In this case, what had happened was that the previous petition, E. A. 37/64, was obviously barred by limitation. The learned Advocate for the petitioner realising that, filed a memo to that effect and started that he did not wish to press the application. The application therefore was dismissed as not pressed. Assuming that the memo conceded that the petition filed under Rule 97 of Order XXI, C. P. C. was time barred and that is why the petitioner did not desire to press the petition and assuming further although the order does not say so expressly, that it was dismissed on the ground that the petition was time barred, even then it cannot be validly urged that the order of dismissal of the petition on the ground of limitation would fall under Rule 99 of Order XXI, C. P. C. I have already stated that Rule requires the Court to satisfy itself in regard to the question involved and that satisfaction cannot be had unless the point involved is investigated. Since there had been no investigation. what must necessarily follow is that the order dismissing the petition in those circumstances as not pressed would not fall under Rule 99 and the order would not be conclusive as to bar a fresh application under Rule 97 of Order XXI, C. P. C. for the same relief. That this view, is correct is clear from the following decisions Bahadur Khan v. Bari Tala, AIR 1940 All 525 and Kotumal v. Gur Ashram, AIR 1947 Sind 118. I do not therefore think that the lower Court went in any manner wrong in holding that in these circumstances, the fresh petition was not barred because of the previous order given in E. A. 37/64.
Allahabad High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 2 - Full Document
1