Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 12 (0.54 seconds)Section 115 in The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [Entire Act]
Varadarajan vs Muthu Venkatapathi Reddy And Ors. on 16 September, 1952
and Varadarajan v. Muthu Venkatapathi Reddi (1953)1 M.L.J. 148 : A.I.R. 1953 Mad. 587. The question, therefore, is whether the final decree made is dependent for its validity on the order refusing to extend the time. If the learned District Munsif did not refuse to extend the time he could not have made the final decree. If the order refusing to extend the time was set aside in appeal, the final decree could not obviously stand, for it was made on the basis of the order which was subsequently set aside.
S.P Chengalvaraya Naidu vs Jagannath on 27 October, 1993
11. The Apex Court while dealing with similar issue in S.P. Chengatvaraya Naidu v. Jagannath , has held as follows:
Nagubai Ammal & Others vs B. Shama Rao & Others on 26 April, 1956
In Nagubai Ammal v. B. Sharma Rao , this Court held that collusion in judicial proceedings is a secret arrangement between two persons that the one should institute a suit against the other in order to obtain the decision of a judicial Tribunal for some sinister purpose. In such proceedings, the claim put forward is fictitious, the contest over it is unreal, and the decree passed therein is a mere mask having the similitude of a judicial determination and worn by the parties with the object of confounding third parties.
Rup Chand Gupta vs Raghuvanshi Private Limited & Anr on 15 April, 1964
This was reiterated in Rup Chand Gupta v. Raghuvanshi Pvt. Ltd. , in which this Court held that the collusion is an improper act done by an improper refraining from doing an act, for a dishonest purpose. In these two cases this Court set aside the collusive decree obtained by the parties, collusion, thus, is the found a tion to put forward a format of judicial process and a pretext of contest which in effect unreal and farce and the decree or order obtained on its basis is a mere mask having similitude of judicial determination with the object of confounding third parties. The offending order is vitiated by collusions and formed foundation for election to the committee of the society.
Registrar, Manonmaniam Sundaranar ... vs Suhura Beevi Educational Trust And ... on 20 January, 1994
13. Raju, J., as he then was, while dealing with the case in which the suit was originally filed and withdrawn as not pressed and thereafter a suit was filed without impleading the petitioner before this Court and obtained an order and, in such circumstances, the learned Judge, in Registrar, M. S. University v. Suhura Beevi Educational Trust , has held as follows:
Katragadda China Ramayya vs Chiruvella Venkanraju And Anr. on 23 February, 1954
In the circumstance, this is if a fit and proper case for us to set aside the order of the learned District Munsif of Tenali in exercise of our revisional jurisdiction. The powers of the High Court under Section 115, C.P.C, are very wide. Under that section the High Court may call for the record of any case which has been decided by any court subordinate to such High Court and in which no appeal lies thereto and make such order in the case as it thinks fit. Under this section, therefore, the High Court may of its own motion call for any record or may do so at the instance of a party. It does not preclude the High Court from exercising its powers of revision 'suo motu,' if the other conditions laid down in the section are satisfied.
Basudeb Narayan Singh And Ors. vs Shesh Narayan Singh And Ors. on 19 May, 1978
4. While dealing with the similar issue, in Basudeb Narayan v. Shesh Narayan , the learned Judge has dealt with the right of the plaintiff and has held as follows: