Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 6 of 6 (0.22 seconds)Parsion Devi & Ors vs Sumitri Devi & Ors on 14 October, 1997
In A.P. Chary case (supra) relied on by the learned Counsel for 1st respondent it is held that a review petition cannot be treated as a petition for rehearing of the proceeding which was disposed of. In Parsion Devi case (supra), it is held that in an petition for review, only mistake or an error apparent on the face of the record can be corrected, and that review proceedings cannot be allowed to be treated as an appeal in disguise. All the decisions relied on by the learned Counsel for revision petitioner cited 1 to 4 supra have no relevance or application for deciding this revision since they relate to amendment of pleadings, and since IA No.499 of 2001 is a petition seeking review and is not a petition for amendment of pleadings. Therefore I am not referring to those decisions for deciding this revision.
Section 151 in The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [Entire Act]
K. Chinna Biddamma vs J. Krishnama Naidu And Others on 22 December, 2000
4. The contention of the learned Counsel for the revision petitioner is that since the suit is for specific performance of an agreement of sale said to have been executed by the deceased 1st defendant, after entering into an oral agreement of sale in favour of the revision petitioner, who filed a suit seeking specific performance of that agreement against the deceased 1st defendant and brought on record respondents 2 to 4 as his legal representatives subsequent to his death, if the ex parte decree passed against respondents 2 to 4 in this suit is not set aside. Revision petitioner would be put to great hardship and so the ex parte decree against respondents 2 to 4 also is liable to be set aside. It is his contention that the documents filed along with IA No. 480 of 2001 are very relevant for proving the contention of the revision petitioner, and since those documents were filed in the suit filed by the revision .petitioner against the deceased 1st defendant, he could not produce those documents in this suit earlier, and the learned trial Judge without keeping in view the said fact improperly dismissed the petition. He relied on Estralla Rubber v. Dassestate (Petitioner) Limited, , K. Chinna Biddamma v. J. Krishnama Naidu and Ors., , Gujjari Vittal v. Padala Sadanandam, and C. Munaswami v. V. Narasimhulu Chetty, 1971 (1) An.WR304.
Gujjari Vittal vs Padala Sadanandam on 29 December, 2000
4. The contention of the learned Counsel for the revision petitioner is that since the suit is for specific performance of an agreement of sale said to have been executed by the deceased 1st defendant, after entering into an oral agreement of sale in favour of the revision petitioner, who filed a suit seeking specific performance of that agreement against the deceased 1st defendant and brought on record respondents 2 to 4 as his legal representatives subsequent to his death, if the ex parte decree passed against respondents 2 to 4 in this suit is not set aside. Revision petitioner would be put to great hardship and so the ex parte decree against respondents 2 to 4 also is liable to be set aside. It is his contention that the documents filed along with IA No. 480 of 2001 are very relevant for proving the contention of the revision petitioner, and since those documents were filed in the suit filed by the revision .petitioner against the deceased 1st defendant, he could not produce those documents in this suit earlier, and the learned trial Judge without keeping in view the said fact improperly dismissed the petition. He relied on Estralla Rubber v. Dassestate (Petitioner) Limited, , K. Chinna Biddamma v. J. Krishnama Naidu and Ors., , Gujjari Vittal v. Padala Sadanandam, and C. Munaswami v. V. Narasimhulu Chetty, 1971 (1) An.WR304.
President, Trust Board, Amba Bhavani ... vs Anantha Padmanabha Chary And Others on 26 February, 1999
In A.P. Chary case (supra) relied on by the learned Counsel for 1st respondent it is held that a review petition cannot be treated as a petition for rehearing of the proceeding which was disposed of. In Parsion Devi case (supra), it is held that in an petition for review, only mistake or an error apparent on the face of the record can be corrected, and that review proceedings cannot be allowed to be treated as an appeal in disguise. All the decisions relied on by the learned Counsel for revision petitioner cited 1 to 4 supra have no relevance or application for deciding this revision since they relate to amendment of pleadings, and since IA No.499 of 2001 is a petition seeking review and is not a petition for amendment of pleadings. Therefore I am not referring to those decisions for deciding this revision.
1