Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 15 (0.33 seconds)

Kumar Harish Chandra Singh Das & Ors vs Bansidhar Mohanty And Ors on 5 May, 1965

"18. The alteration of the division as well as the change in the collocation of words in Article 137 of the Limitation Act 1963 compared with Article 181 of the 1908 Limitation Act shown that applications contemplated under Article 137 are not applications confined to the Code of Civil Procedure. In the 1908 Limitation Act there was no division between applications in specified cases and other applications as in the 1963 Limitation Act. The word 'any other application' under Article 137 cannot be said on the principle of ejusdem generis to be applications under the Civil Procedure Code other than those mentioned in Part I of the third division. Any other application under Article 137 would be petition or any application under any Act. But it has to be an application to a Court for the reason that Sections 4 and 5 of the 1963 Limitation Act speak of expiry of prescribed period when court is closed and extension of prescribed period if the applicant or the appellant satisfies the court that he had sufficient cause    PC No. 16161/16       Harish Kumar Vs. State & Ors                 6 of 8 for not preferring the appeal or making the application during such period.
Supreme Court of India Cites 8 - Cited by 8 - J R Mudholkar - Full Document

Kunvarjeet Singh Khandpur vs Kirandeep Kaur & Ors on 3 April, 2008

13 Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, further in the case of KRISHAN KUMAR SHARMA VS. RAJESH KUMAR SHARMA (2009) SCC, held that Article 137 of Limitation Act is applicable in case of Probate/ Letter of Administration but applicable as per judgment of in case "KUNVARJEET SINGH KHANDPUR VS. KIRANDEEP KUAR", 2008 SCC, (Supra) "16. Rejecting Mr. Dalpatrai's contention. I summarise my conclusion thus-
Supreme Court of India Cites 18 - Cited by 160 - A Pasayat - Full Document
1   2 Next