Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 8 of 8 (0.22 seconds)The Limitation Act, 1963
Jogendronundini Dossee vs Hurry Doss Ghose on 18 July, 1879
78 the Judges of the Allahabad High Court followed that view and imposed conditions on the husband; and similarly also the Judges of this Court imposed certain conditions on the husband in the case of Jogendronundini Dossee v. Hurry Doss Ghose (1879) I.L.R. 5 Cal. 500.
Brindabun Chandra Kurmokar vs Chundra Kurmokar, Guardian Of The Minor ... on 11 August, 1885
The second is the case of Brindabun Chandra Kurmohar v. Chandra Kurmokar (1885) I.L.R. 12 Cal. 140 in which the Judges of this Court (Norris and Ghose, JJ.) held in a suit for restitution of conjugal rights that the fact of the celebration of the marriage having been established, the presumption, in the absence of anything to the contrary, is that all the necessary ceremonies have been complied with. In that case, however, there appears, to have been findings by both Lower Courts with regard to the rites and ceremonies performed at the alleged marriage, and on those materials the Judges of this Court who heard the case, were able to arrive at an independent opinion and at a finding reversing the findings of both Lower Courts. In this case there are absolutely no materials to enable us to come to any finding to this point.
The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
Section 23 in The Limitation Act, 1963 [Entire Act]
Article 120 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Akikunnissa Bibee vs Roop Lal Das And Anr. on 30 April, 1897
30. In our opinion, especially in a case like the present, where the decisions of the points in issue in the suit are of the greatest possible importance to defendant No. 1, as in fact affecting possible the whole of her future life, the Court of first instance should take the greatest care consistent with reason that full opportunity is given to the defendants to lay before the Court all the evidence they may be able to produce to support their defence. and certainly when a Court by its own procedure has lulled a party into a sense of false security, if afterwards by a sudden change in procedure it takes that party by surprise, it ought not to refuse to that party a reasonable opportunity to recover from the false position in which he has been placed. The case of Akikunnissa Bibi v. Rup Lal Das (1898) I.L.R. 25 Cal. 807 to which we have been referred, I, does not appear to be on all fours with the present case. In this case the defendants' failure to have all their witnesses in attendance on the 5th October is said to have been due to a belief, induced in them by the previous procedure of the Munsif in the case, that there was no chance of all their witnesses, who were present, being examined on that day, and, as we are unable to hold that the belief of the defendants in that respect was not reasonable, we differ from the Subordinate Judge, and are of opinion that the Munsif failed to exercise a wise and sound discretion when he refused to grant the application for an adjournment for one day only, in order to secure the attendance of the absent witneses. It is impossible for us with the facts before us to say that the evidence of the witnesses who were not examined could not have effected the merits of the case, and we are unable therefore to hold that the error or irregularity of the Munsif is covered by the provisions of Section 578 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
1