Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 13 (0.30 seconds)Ramanand And Ors. vs Jai Ram And Ors. on 19 July, 1920
26. Where an earlier decree based on title for ejectment is not executed in time but a
fresh suit is however filed on the same basis against the same defendant for ejectment
relying on the earlier judgment, it has been held that a second suit does not lie. This is
based on the principle that no second suit lies merely on the basis of the earlier judg-
ment if the time for execution of the earlier decree has become barred. The cases re-
lied up by the High Court in Ramanand v. Jai Ram, AIR 1921 All 369; Sovani Jena v.
Bhima Ray, AIR 1922 Pat 407; Mal Singh Bika Singh v. Mohinder Singh Mehar
Singh, AIR 1970 Punj & Har 509, belong to this category. But, in the present case,
they are distinguishable. The plaint before us is not based on the decree obtained in
the first eviction case filed under the Rent Control law.
Janki Vashdeo Bhojwani & Anr vs Indusind Bank Ltd. & Ors on 6 December, 2004
20. As such, in the light of decision of Supreme Court in the case of
Janki Vashdeo Bhojwani and another vs. Indusind Bank Ltd. (2005) 2
SCC 217 evidence of power of attorney holder - Kundanlal (PW-1)
cannot be considered in place of the plaintiff.
Gian Singh vs State Of Punjab & Anr on 23 November, 2010
In the case of Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and another (2010) 15
SCC 118, the Supreme Court has held that the things which cannot be
done directly in law, cannot be done indirectly. Relevant para 7 is quoted
as under :
Article 136 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001
The Limitation Act, 1963
Shri Ajit Chopra vs Sadhu Ram And Ors on 2 November, 1999
17. Undisputedly, in the present case compromise decree of
possession/ejectment was not passed in the suit under the Rent Control
Act, therefore, the decisions in the case of Ajit Chopra (supra) and
Laxman Kumer alias Chuttan (supra) cited on behalf of the appellant are
distinguishable on facts and are not applicable to the case in hand.
Dhanraj Singh And Ors. vs Musammat Lakhrani Kuar on 26 May, 1916
"25. This point is crucial to the case. Now, if a suit for possession is decreed and the
decree-holder gets possession and thereafter there is a fresh dispossession, there is no
difficulty in holding that a fresh suit is maintainable for ejectment, because the fresh
trespass creates a fresh cause of action. This principle is stated in Dhanraj Singh v.
Mt. Lakrani Kuar, AIR 1916 All 183, referred to by the learned single Judge in the
judgment under appeal. But that is not the only situation in which, it can be said there
will be a fresh cause of action. There can be other situations where a fresh cause of
action arises.
Mal Singh And Others vs Mohinder Singh And Others on 27 January, 2009
15. Taking into consideration other decisions as well the aforesaid
decision in the case of Mal Singh and others (supra), the Supreme Court
in the case of Ajit Chopra (supra), has observed as under: