Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 17 (0.70 seconds)Kshitish Chandra Purkait vs Santosh Kumar Purkait & Ors on 7 May, 1997
In Kshitish Chandra Purkait v. Santosh Kumar Purkait, (1997) 5 SCC 438, this
Court held that existence of substantial question of law was the sine qua non for the
exercise of jurisdiction under Section 100CPC.
Ram Prasad Rajak vs Nand Kumar & Bors. & Anr on 18 August, 1998
[Ram Prasad Rajak v. Nand
Kumar & Bros., (1998) 6 SCC 748], this Court held that : (SCC p. 751, para 7)
"7. ... Once the proceeding in the High Court is treated as a second appeal
under Section 100CPC, the restrictions prescribed in the said Section
would come into play. The High Court could and ought to have dealt with
the matter as a second appeal and found out whether a substantial question
of law arose for consideration. Unless there was a substantial question of
law, the High Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the second appeal and
consider the merits."
The Hindu Succession Act, 1956
The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
1. Chandrabhan (Deceased) Through Lrs vs Saraswati on 22 September, 2022
In the matter of Chandrabhan v. Saraswati, reported in (2022) 20
SCC 199, the Apex Court held as under:-
H.P. Pyarejan vs Dasappa(Dead) By L.Rs. & Ors on 6 February, 2006
In
H.P. Pyarejan v. Dasappa, (2006) 2 SCC 496, this Court held :
Panchugopal Barua & Ors vs Umesh Chandra Goswami & Ors on 12 February, 1997
Interference with finding of fact by the High
Court is not warranted if it involves re-appreciation of evidence
(see Panchugopal Barua v. Umesh Chandra Goswami, (1997) 4 SCC 713
5
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:30845
and Kshitish Chandra Purkait v. Santosh Kumar Purkait, (1997) 5 SCC
Naresh Kumar & Ors vs Hemant Gera And Others on 22 January, 2010
10. The Supreme Court in case of Naresh and others Vs. Hemant and
others reported in (2022) SCC 802 held as under:-
The Secretary,Ministry Of Works & ... vs Shri Mohinder Singh Jagdev & Ors on 16 August, 1996
11. The material on record is examined in the light of aforestated
proposition of law. Learned counsel for the appellants in addition to the facts
and grounds stated in the appeal memo contended that the Court of first
instance and the first appellate Court did not consider the question of
limitation, the suit was barred by limitation. Learned counsel for the appellant,
referring to the judgments in cases of Secretary, Ministry of Works, Housing
and Supply, New Delhi Vs. Mohinder Singh reported in 1996 (6) SCC 229;
Nikhila Divyang Mehta Vs. Hitesh P. Sanghavi reported in 2025 SCC Online
SC 779 and Pramila Das v. Jagma Parva Mohanty reported in 2012 SCC
Online Orissa 295, submitted that in view of the Section 3 of the Limitation
Act, legal plea of limitation can be raised at any stage of the trial including the
second appeal. Lakshmibai and Premlata had filed a suit for partition before the
Court of District Judge, Mandsore in year 2009. The respondent Shanti Bai was
defendant in the suit. The plaintiff-Shantibai had pleaded in para 10 of the
plaint about the previous challenge to her title in civil suit No.12-A/2009.
Shanti Bai could have filed counter claim to establish her title on the basis of
Will. Therefore, right to sue first accrued to Shantibai in year 2009. Present suit
was filed in 2014. Therefore, it was barred by limitation as provided under
Article 58 of the Limitation Act. The Court of first instance and the first
appellate court committed error in entertaining the time-barred suit.