Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 7 of 7 (0.20 seconds)The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
The Limitation Act, 1963
G.P. Srivastava vs Shri R.K. Raizada & Ors on 3 March, 2000
In G.P.Srivastava v. R.K.Raizada
and others ((2000) 3 SCC 54), the Supreme Court has
held that the words "was prevented by sufficient cause
from appearing" must be liberally construed to enable
the court to do complete justice between the parties.
Section 5 in The Limitation Act, 1963 [Entire Act]
New Model Bank Ltd. vs P.A. Thomas on 30 September, 1959
260); Thankamma v. Vaikom Town Juma Masjid Mahal
Sangham (1987 (2) KLT 780); Shaji Varghese v. Cherian
(1993 (1) KLT 133); New Model Bank Ltd. (in
liquidation) v. P.A.Thomas (1959 KLT 1237) and
Kunhikayyumma and another v. Union of India and others
(AIR 1984 Kerala 184)). The appellant has filed the
application under rule 9 of Order IX of the Code of
Civil Procedure. The appellant was the defendant in
the suit. Evidently, Rule 9 of Order IX does not
apply. Only Rule 13 of Order IX applies. Simply
because a wrong provision of law was quoted, the court
below was not justified in dismissing the application
on that ground.
Kunhikayyumma And Anr. vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 12 September, 1983
260); Thankamma v. Vaikom Town Juma Masjid Mahal
Sangham (1987 (2) KLT 780); Shaji Varghese v. Cherian
(1993 (1) KLT 133); New Model Bank Ltd. (in
liquidation) v. P.A.Thomas (1959 KLT 1237) and
Kunhikayyumma and another v. Union of India and others
(AIR 1984 Kerala 184)). The appellant has filed the
application under rule 9 of Order IX of the Code of
Civil Procedure. The appellant was the defendant in
the suit. Evidently, Rule 9 of Order IX does not
apply. Only Rule 13 of Order IX applies. Simply
because a wrong provision of law was quoted, the court
below was not justified in dismissing the application
on that ground.
1