Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 17 (0.35 seconds)The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
Section 8 in The Delhi Rent Act, 1995 [Entire Act]
Section 3 in The Delhi Rent Act, 1995 [Entire Act]
Madhukar And Ors vs Sangram And Ors on 20 April, 2001
9. In our view, it is difficult for us to set aside the findings of the
High Court on the question whether the first appellate court, while
deciding the questions of fact and law, had complied with the
requirements under O.41 of the CPC. We are in agreement with the
findings of the High Court as on a perusal of the judgment of the first
appellate court, it does not appear to us that the findings arrived at by
the first appellate court affirming the judgment of the trial court on
any issue were either very cryptic or based on non-consideration of
the arguments advanced by the parties before it. In support of this
contention, before the High Court, the appellant had relied on a
decision of this court in the case of Santosh Hazari [supra], but in this
appeal, the learned senior counsel for the appellant Mr. Gupta has
strongly relied on a decision of this court in the case of Madhukar &
Ors. Vs. Sangram & Ors. [(2001) 4 SCC 756] and contended that
since the judgment of the first appellate court was cryptic in nature
and the first appellate court had not dealt with the issues involved in
the appeal, the same was liable to be set aside and the matter was
liable to be sent back to the first appellate court for rehearing. We are
unable to accept this contention of the learned senior counsel for the
appellant.