Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 7 of 7 (0.17 seconds)The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
Desh Bandhu Gupta vs N.L.Anand & Rajinder Singh on 17 September, 1993
In Desk Bandhu Gupta v. N.L. Anand and Rajinder Singh , in paragraph 5 of the judgment, the contention raised was one of the joint purchasers not made as party to application under Section 47 read with Order 21, Rule 90 of Code of Civil Procedure. In that context, Honourable Supreme Court in para 5 held thus:
Thondam Annamalai Mudali vs Tiruttani Ramasami Mudali And Ors. on 25 October, 1940
10. I refer to the earlier decision of this Court even prior to the amendment to Section 47. The same is reported in Annamalai Mudali v. Ramasami Mudali (1941) 1 M.L.J. 45 : A.I.R. 1941 Mad. 161 (KB.), wherein the Full Bench held that Section 47 does not apply to a case where the dispute arises between a party and his own representative or between the two persons who both represent the same party.
Seth Kedar Nath vs K. Arun Chandra Sinha on 4 August, 1937
In Kedar Nath v. Arun Chandra A.I.R. 1937 All. 742 (F.B.), a Full Bench of Allahabad High Court held that auction purchaser is a representative of judgment-debtor and a dispute between auction purchaser and judgment-debtor cannot be decided under Section 47 of Code of Civil Procedure unless decree-holder is also interested.
Laxminarayan Devastan And Ors. vs Khanderao Yeshwantrao And Ors. on 20 October, 1953
In Laxminarayan Devastan v. Khanderao , where dispute was between decree-holders and their representatives, it is held that Section 47 will not apply.
Prabhu Dayal vs Ram Nik Lal And Anr. on 2 March, 1979
13. What is the effect of amendment, came for consideration before Allahabad High Court and the same is reported in Prabhu Dayal v. Ram Niklal . In paragraph 7 of the judgment, their Lordships extracted the relevant portion of Section 47 under Act 104 of 1976 and thereafter in para 8, what is the effect of amendment was considered, which read thus,
1