Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 5 of 5 (0.39 seconds)Section 19 in The Family Courts Act, 1984 [Entire Act]
Sethuraman vs Rajamanickam on 18 March, 2009
4. As stated above, Section 19 of the Act allows a party to file an Appeal
against any judgment or order not being an interlocutory order. By virtue
of the impugned order, an Application under Section 311 of the Code
moved by the Appellant for recalling the Respondent for further cross-
examination was dismissed by the Judge, Family Court. A latest
judgment of the Supreme Court in Sethuraman v. Rajamanickam, (2009)
5 SCC 153 is an answer to the question whether an order rejecting the
Application under Section 311 of the Code is an interlocutory order. In
Sethuraman, the Supreme Court laid down that such an order would be
only an interlocutory order against which no Revision Petition under
Section 397 of the Code would be maintainable. Para 5 of the report is
extracted hereunder:
Kaushalya Rani vs Municipal Corporation Of Delhi & Anr. on 1 May, 1999
5. A similar view was taken by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in
Kaushalya Rani v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi & Anr., (1999) 79
DLT 709.
Section 91 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
1