Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 24 (0.31 seconds)Article 226 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Section 33 in The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 [Entire Act]
The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
Section 10 in The Limitation Act, 1963 [Entire Act]
Major S. S. Khanna vs Brig. F.J. Dillon on 14 August, 1963
The provisions of this
Rule came up for consideration before this Court in Major
S. S. Khanna v. Brig. F. J. Dillon (AIR 1964 SC 497) and it
was held as under: (SCR p. 421) (P. 503 of AIR)
"18.....Under Order 14, Rule 2, Code of Civil Procedure
Page 28 of 37
C/SCA/5546/2018 ORDER
where issues both of law and of fact arise in the same
suit, and the court is of opinion that the case or any part
thereof may be disposed of on the issues of law only, it
shall try those issues first, and for that purpose may, if it
thinks fit, postpone the settlement of the issues of fact
until after the issues of law have been determined. The
jurisdiction to try issues of law apart from the issues of
fact may be exercised only where in the opinion of the
court the whole suit may be disposed of on the issues of
law alone, but the Code confers no jurisdiction upon the
court to try a suit on mixed issues of law and fact as
preliminary issues. Normally all the issues in a suit should
be tried by the court; not to do so, especially when the
decision on issues even of law depend upon the decision
of issues of fact, would result in a lopsided trial of the
suit".
Raj. State Road Transport Corp., & Anr vs Satya Prakash & Anr on 22 November, 2013
Yet
another decision which has been relied upon is in the case of
Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation & Anr., v.
Satya Prakash reported in 2013 (9) SCC 232.
R. Balasubramanian And Ors. vs Carborandum Universal Ltd., Okha on 19 August, 1975
As well as two
other decisions in the case of D. P. Maheshwari (supra)
(1983 (o) GLHEL - HC SC 7067) and the decision of the
Division Bench of this Court in the case of R. Blasubramanian
Page 19 of 37
C/SCA/5546/2018 ORDER
v. Carborundum Universal Limited reported in 1976 GLR
787 ( = 1975 Law Suit (Guj) 80) and by referring all these
decisions, learned advocate Mr. Dave has pointed out that this is
a fit case in which extra ordinary jurisdiction to be exercised.
Satti Paradesi Samadhi & Pilliar Temple vs M. Sakuntala(D) Tr.Lrs.& Ors on 3 July, 2014
[28] This Court is also mindful of one of the decision
delivered by the Apex Court in the case of Satti Paradesi
Samadhi and Pillayar Temple v. M. Sankuntala Through
Legal Representatives and Others reported in (2015) 5 SCC
674 in which it has been propounded that any issue which
requires element of inquiry into facts, the same cannot be
treated as preliminary issue. The Apex Court of course in context
of issue of limitations has observed that why the proposition of
law which has been laid down is worth to be taken care of. The
relevant observations in para Nos. 13, 14, 15 is relating with any
issue which requires examination of law and fact, the same may
not be treated as preliminary issue. Since this observations are
relevant, the Court deems it proper to quote hereinafter;
Ramesh B. Desai And Others vs Bipin Vadilal Mehta And Others on 11 July, 2006
In the said judgment the Court opined
as follows: (Ramesh B. Desai case SCC p.650 para 13)
"13. Sub-rule (2) of Order 14, Rule 2 CPC lays down that
where issues both of law and of fact arise in the same
suit, and the court is of the opinion that the case or any
part thereof may be disposed of on an issue of law only, it
may try that issue first if that issue relates to (a) the
jurisdiction of the court, or (b) a bar to the suit created by
any law for the time being in force.