Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 7 of 7 (0.61 seconds)Section 115 in The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [Entire Act]
Femina Handloom Of India, Cannanore vs M.R. Verma & Sons on 19 August, 1992
Shree Satya Narain Tulsi Manas Mandir ... vs Workman Compensation ... on 26 May, 2006
in C.S. No.66-I/2009 title Trilok Narain Vs. Durga alias Durgi Devi
and others.
Section 151 in The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [Entire Act]
Suhrid Singh @ Sardool Singh vs Randhir Singh & Ors on 29 March, 2010
17. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of
non-revisionists that order of learned Trial Court is in consonance
with law in view of decision given by Apex Court of India in Suhrid
Singh @ Sardool Singh Vs. Randhir Singh & Others announced
in Civil Appeal Nos. 2811-2813 of 2010 is decided accordingly. It
is held that provision of Order XIV Rule 2 (2) (a) (b)CPC amended
w.e.f. 1.2.1977 was not in issue with Hon'ble Apex Court of India
in case cited supra. It is held that provision of Order XIV Rule 2
(2) (a) (b) CPC amended w.e.f. 1.2.1977 was not declared as null
and void by Hon'ble Apex Court of India in ruling cited supra. It is
held that ruling cited supra is distinguishable and is not applicable
in present facts and circumstances of case. It is held that concept
::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 21:43:43 :::HCHP
9
of stare decisis would not apply in present case relating to Order
.
The Manager, Bettiah Estate vs Sri Bhagwati Saran Singh And Others on 27 March, 1992
suit w.e.f. 1.2.1977. (1) Issue relating to jurisdiction of Court. (2)
Issue relating to limitation. It is held that after amendment in CPC
w.e.f. 1.2.1977 issue relating to value of Court fee cannot be
decided as preliminary issue. It is held that object of amendment
of
in CPC relating to preliminary issue is avoidance of piecemeal trial
and abridging protracted litigation. See AIR 1993 Allahabad 2
rt
Manager Bettiah Estate Vs. Bhagwati Saran Singh.
1