Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 31 (0.48 seconds)Section 10 in The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [Entire Act]
Section 11 in The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [Entire Act]
Manohar Lal vs Narain Dass And Anr. on 5 August, 1986
iv.Manohar Lal vs. Narain Das & Another 32(1987)
Delhi Law Times 215 - while considering the
contentions of Section 11 as well as Order XXIII of Rule
1(4) CPC in an eviction petition under Delhi Rent Control
Act, it was held that when the petition was dismissed as
withdrawn on the basis of compromise, the matter had
not been heard and decided on merits. Since, there is no
decision of the Court on previous order based on
compromise, it does not bar the second application, as
order did not operate as res judicata.
The Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958
Moran Mar Basselios Catholicos And ... vs The Most Rev. Mar Poulose Athanasius And ... on 21 May, 1954
(b)Moran Mar Eassellos Catholicos vs. Most Rev. Mar
Poulose Athanasius AIR 1954 S.C. 526 - in a suit of
ejectment, the plaintiff must support the case on strength
of his own title and this can be done by producing
sufficient evidence to discharge the onus. To say, onus
lies on the plaintiff to prove his case irrespective of
whether the defendant has proved his title or not. A mere
destruction of the defendant's title, in the absence of
Contd....
K.S. Bhoopathy And Ors vs Kokila And Ors on 8 May, 2000
(b)K.S. Bhoopathy vs. Kokila AIR 2000 S.C. 2132 -
neither the plaintiff can abandon a suit or a part of the
suit reserving to himself a right to bring a fresh suit not
Contd....
Kamal Kishore Saboo vs Nawabzada Humayun Kamal Hasan Khan on 2 February, 2001
(c)Kamal Kishore Saboo vs. Nawabzada Humayun
Kamal Hasan Khan 2001 II AD (Delhi) 635 - the
second suit for specific performance of contract was not
held to be maintainable, as the plaintiff could implead
suit for specific performance of contract in the first suit
for permanent injunction, as there was same cause of
action. In the present case, the appellant had initially filed
original suit No. 151/89 seeking permanent injunction
and during the pendency of original suit, the subsequent
suit was filed (from which the present appeal has
emerged). On the basis of same sale deed and relief
claimed in the subsequent suit, was the same relief
claimed in the previous suit.
Satish Khosla vs M/S Eli Lilly Ranbaxy Ltd. & Another on 12 December, 1997
(d)Satish Khosla vs. Eli Lilly Ranbaxy Ltd. 1998
Rajdhani Law Reporter 180 - the issue was under
Holy Health And Educational Society ... vs Delhi Development Authority on 24 May, 1999
(e)Holy Health and Educational Society (Regd.) vs. Delhi
Development Authority 1999 IV AD (Delhi) 552 -