Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 10 (0.40 seconds)Section 38 in Presidency Small Cause Courts Act, 1882 [Entire Act]
Presidency Small Cause Courts Act, 1882
Section 42 in Presidency Small Cause Courts Act, 1882 [Entire Act]
The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
Section 6 in The Specific Relief Act, 1963 [Entire Act]
Provincial Small Causes Courts Act,1887
Section 115 in The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [Entire Act]
Section 47 in Presidency Small Cause Courts Act, 1882 [Entire Act]
Girjashankar Prabhashankar Raval vs Manharlal Jetashankar Dave on 13 July, 1983
In our opinion, with due respect, the
proposition laid down in Kanchanben Maganlal Vaghela case
(supra), is not a correct law, whereas the proposition of
law laid down in Girjashankar Prabhashankar Raval case
(supra) is the correct law, and therefore, we are of the
opinion that the provisions of Section 38 of the Act
would not be attracted, and the competent forum to
challenge such an order is revisional forum i.e.
concerned High Court, under Section 115 of the C.P.C.
The law laid down in Girjashankar Prabhashankar Raval
case (supra), is, therefore, required to be upheld being
correct and proper exposition of law, whereas the law
laid down in Kanchanben Maganlal Vaghela case (supra), is
not correct, and, therefore, the decision rendered by the
learned Chief Justice, in that case, is required to be
overruled.
1