Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 26 (1.25 seconds)The Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961
The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
V.K. Majotra vs Union Of India & Ors on 9 September, 2003
43 In V.K. Majotra v. Union of India, (2003) 8 Supreme
Court Cases 40, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has held (in
para-8) to the effect that the writ courts would be well advised
to decide the petitions on the points raised in the petition and if
in a rare case keeping in view the facts and circumstances of
the case any additional points are to be raised then the
concerned and affected parties should be put to notice on the
additional points to satisfy the principles of natural justice. The
parties cannot be taken by surprise.
Aribam Tuleshwar Sharma vs Aribam Pishak Sharma And Ors. on 25 January, 1979
31 Reliance has been placed on the judgment in Aribam
Tuleshwar Sharma's case (supra) to hold that there are
definitive limits to the exercise of power of review.
Shivdeo Singh & Ors vs State Of Punjab & Ors on 8 February, 1961
23 So as to consider the judgments cited by the learned
counsel for the applicant-petitioner, in Shivdeo Singh's case
(supra), it has been held that there is nothing in Article 226 of
the Constitution of India to preclude a High Court from
exercising the power of review which inheres in every court of
plenary jurisdiction to prevent miscarriage of justice or to
correct grave and palpable errors committed by it.
24 The judgment would have no application to the facts
of the case, because a case is to be seen and perceived in
context of its pleadings and arguments addressed in context of
pleadings. The relevant pleadings are sought to be brought on
record by way of the review application and amendment in the
writ petition, which in my considered opinion, cannot be
considered for review of the decision.
Trojan & Co. Ltd vs Rm. N. N. Nagappa Chettiar on 20 March, 1953
34 In the case of Trojan & Co. Ltd. (supra), the Hon'ble
Supreme Court of India has held that it is well settled that the
decision of a case cannot be based on ground outside the
pleadings of the parties and it is the case pleaded that has to be
found. Without an amendment of the plaint the court was not
entitled to grant the relief not asked for and no prayer was ever
made to amend the plaint so as to incorporate in it an
alternative case.
Bharat Singh & Ors vs State Of Haryana & Ors on 13 September, 1988
35 Before adverting to the issue of review of the
decision, it is imperative to examine as to what is a writ petition.
36 In Bharat Singh and others v. State of Haryana and
others, AIR 1988 Supreme Court 2181(1), the following has been
held (in para-13) :-
State Of West Bengal & Anr vs West Bengal Regn.Copy Writers Assn.& ... on 8 May, 2009
37 In State of West Bengal and another v. West Bengal
Registration Copywriters Association and another, (2009) 14
Supreme Court Cases 132, in para-75, it has been held that "A
writ petitioner has to stand on his own legs and has to rely on
the pleadings in the writ petition". Having held thus, in para-76,
the following has been held:-
Sadananda Halo & Others vs Momtaz Ali Sheikh & Others on 27 February, 2008
38 In para-83, it has been held that "There could be no
doubt about the High Court's power to mould the relief.
However, even in its plenary jurisdiction, while moulding the
relief, there must be a plea to support such a relief. The relief
granted by the High Court in this case is extraordinarily beyond
the jurisdiction of the High Court and has no nucleus in the writ
petitions or in the original applications".
39 In Sadananda Halo and others v. Momtaz AliSheikh
and others, (2008) 4 Supreme Court Cases 619, it has been held
as under (in para-58):-