Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 2 of 2 (0.23 seconds)
Vasantrao Gudacharva Jahagirdar vs Sharanbasappa Vishwanath Halli on 12 October, 2007 cites

Sardul Singh vs Pritam Singh And Ors on 18 March, 1999

3. I am not inclined to allow this ground to be urged since it is being urged for the first time in this revision, without being raised in any of the Courts below. It is clear that the parties were perfectly conscious of the grounds that is being pleaded and in fact have gone to trial on the basis of the understanding of the pleadings. The parties have already led evidence and argued the existence or otherwise of the essential ingredients of 13(1)(k). The Courts below have considered the availability of the grounds. See Sardul Singh v. Pritam Singh and Ors. . It is settled law that where the parties have gone to the trial with full knowledge of the pleadings they ought not to be allowed to raise a ground for the first time at a much later stage. No prejudice can be said to be caused to them.
Supreme Court of India Cites 2 - Cited by 19 - M J Rao - Full Document

Kidar Lall Seal And Another vs Hari Lall Seal on 18 December, 1951

In any case, the petitioner understood the pleadings as such and the parties led evidence on the point and argued on the point whether the premises were kept locked continuously. In fact the learned District Judge has observed that the suit premises were kept locked for a period of 4 years preceding the suit. It must be noted that the finding in this regard by the Courts below is based on clear and cogent evidence and is not liable to be interfered with. I would respectfully rely on the observations of the Supreme Court in Kedar Lal Seal v. Hari Lal Seal . Bose J. speaking for the Court said in para 51:
Supreme Court of India Cites 16 - Cited by 78 - V Bose - Full Document
1