Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 7 of 7 (0.74 seconds)The Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958
Section 53A in The Transfer Of Property Act, 1882 [Entire Act]
Section 144 in The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [Entire Act]
Lisamma Antony vs Karthiyayani on 20 March, 2015
4. I may note that as per Order XLI Rule 24 CPC once the
record of the court below is complete i.e the case before the court
below is decided in terms of admitted facts on record, then this appeal
can be decided by this Court on a totally independent reasoning which
is not found in the impugned judgment and issue of remand would
have arisen if only fresh evidence has to be led (Order XLI Rule 23
CPC) or the court below had decided the objections only on a
preliminary issue (Order XLI Rule 23A CPC). The object of Order
EFA No.18/2017 Page 4 of 14
XLI Rule 24 CPC is that a case should not be remanded once the
matter can be decided as per the record of the case being the pleadings
and evidence led in the case or the admitted facts on record not
requiring any remand under Rules 23 and 23A of Order XLI CPC vide
Lisamma Antony and Another Vs. Karthiyayani and Another (2015)
11 SCC 782.
N. Balakrishnan vs M. Krishnamurthy on 3 September, 1998
9. The next technical argument of the respondent no. 2 is
also misconceived that there is delay in re-filing of the appeal
inasmuch as there is no such objection which is raised by the Registry.
Even assuming for the sake of arguments that some objection has been
raised by the Registry which can lead to holding that there is delay in
re-filing of the appeal for a week or two, yet the same would not mean
that the appeal would have to be dismissed as time-barred. Such
minor delays are always condoned, assuming they existed, in view of
the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of N. Balakrishnan Vs.
M. Krishnamurthy AIR 1998 SC 3222 and more so as the delay is not
of original filing but only of re-filing.
Section 57 in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
1