Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 7 of 7 (1.06 seconds)
Sm. Radharani Das vs Sisir Kumar And Ors. on 10 September, 1952 cites

R.M.A.R.A. Adaikappa Chettiar vs R. Chandrasekhara Thevar on 29 July, 1947

It is also equally well settled that when a legal right is in dispute and the ordinary Courts of the country are seised of such dispute, the Courts are governed by the ordinary rules of procedure applicable thereto and an appeal lies, if authorised by such rules, notwithstanding that the legal right claimed arises under a special statute which does not in terms confer a right of appeal: vide -- 'Adaikappa Chettiar v. Chandrasekhara Thevar' . There can be little doubt that in an application under Section 6 of the Amending Act 62 of 1950, or Section 18 of the original Act (Act 17 of 1950), whether before or after the amendment, a legal right is in dispute and that the ordinary civil Court of the country is in seisin of the same, that is, of such dispute. If, therefore, the decision of such an application falls within the provision or provisions which authorise appeals from decisions of civil Courts, its appealability would be beyond question. The Code of Civil Procedure contains the general law of appeals in relation to civil Court decisions. Under it decisions or adjudications of civil Courts are divided into two classes, viz. decrees and orders. Decrees are as a rule appealable excepting decrees passed on consent. Orders are appealable only when they fall within Section 104 or Order 43, Rule 1 of the Code. Admittedly the impugned decision with which we are here concerned cannot be brought within any of these latter provisions namely, Section 104 and Order 43, Rule 1 of the Code. The relevant enquiry therefore is whether it satisfies the tests or requirements of a decree under the Code of Civil Procedure.
Bombay High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 126 - Full Document
1