Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 13 (0.21 seconds)
Venukuri Krishna Reddi And Anr. vs Kota Ramireddi And Ors. on 23 November, 1953 cites

Gopal Singh vs Jhakri Rai And Ors. on 7 August, 1885

6. But then the question is whether evidence admitted without according reasons for such admission under Order 41, Rule 27(2) becomes inadmissible for that reason? There is considerable authority for the position that Rule 27(2) is directory and not imperative. Vide -- 'Gopal Singh v. Jakri Rai', 12 Cal 37 (C). That only means that even though no reasons have been recorded before admitting evidence under Order 41, Rule 27(1) if the reception of such evidence could be justified under that rule it cannot be excluded from consideration.
Calcutta High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 19 - Full Document

S.M.S. Subramanian Chettiar vs Sinnammal And Ors. on 22 August, 1924

8. The next point for determination is whether the dismissal of the suit by the lower appellate court not only against those defendants who had preferred appeals but even as against those who had not, was proper and legal. That depends upon whether that could be justified under Order 41, Rule 33, C. P. C. In -- 'Subramania Chettiar v. Sinnammal', AIR 1930 Mad 801 (G) a Full Bench of this court had occasion to consider the scope of Order 41, Rule 33. There, the contention that was advanced was that even though the language of that rule was wide, it must be read subject to Order 41, Rule 22 and other statutes such as Limitation Act and Court-fees Act; and that, so read it conferred no Jurisdiction on the court to pass a decree in favour of a party who had preferred neither an appeal nor a cross-appeal. This court rejected that contention and held that having regard to the wide terms in which the rule was couched it must be held to confer a jurisdiction to pass a decree in favour of a party even though he had not filed an appeal or a cross-appeal.
Madras High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 17 - Full Document

Jawahar Bano And Anr. vs Shujaat Husain Beg And Ors. on 17 June, 1920

10. Though Order 41, Rule 33 confers wide and unlimited jurisdiction on courts to pass a decree in favour of a party who has not preferred any appeal, there are, however, certain well defined principles in accordance with which that jurisdiction should be exercised. Normally a party who is aggrieved by a decree should, if he seeks to escape from its operation, appeal against it within the time allowed after complying with the requirements of law. Where he fails to do so, no relief should ordinarily be given to nun under Order 41, Rule 33. As observed in -- 'Jawahar Bano v. Shujaat Hussain Beg', AIR 1921 All 367 (H) explaining the decision of the Full Bench in -- 'Rangamlal v. Chandu', 34 All 32 (I):
Allahabad High Court Cites 1 - Cited by 7 - Full Document

Akimannessa Bibi And Ors. vs Bepin Behari Mitter on 15 August, 1915

Vide also -- 'Akimannessa v. Bepin Behari', AIR 1916 Cal 261 (K). But there are well recognised exceptions to this rule. One is where as a result of interference in favour of the appellant it becomes necessary to re-adjust the rights of other parties. This might happen when A files a suit claiming a relief in the alternative against B or C and obtains a decree against B and not against C and in an appeal fay B the court holds that it is C and not B that is liable. That is the illustration to the rule.
Calcutta High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 8 - Full Document

V.P.R.V. Chockalingam Chetty vs Seethi Ache on 28 October, 1927

As held by the Privy Council in -- 'Chokalingam Chetty v. Seethai Ache', AIR 1927 P. C. 252 (Q), the right which a decree-holder has under a decree when the time for appealing against it has expired is a valuable one and courts must act with considerable caution and reserve before depriving him of that right by invoking the powers under Order 41, Rule 33. Having regard to these principles the question has to be determined whether the exercise by the subordinate Judge of the power under Order 41, Rule 33 is in the instant case proper.
Bombay High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 50 - Full Document

P. Alagiri Subba Naick And Ors. vs The Official Receiver Of Tinnevelly ... on 8 January, 1931

14. Before Panchapakesa Aiyar J. and before us the decree was sought to be supported on the ground that the plaintiff had come to the court with a false case and that Order 41, Rule 33 was, therefore rightly invoked against him. Reliance was also placed on -- 'Krishnaswami Naick v. Ayyappa Naick', AIR 1915 Mad 227 (2) (Y), the effect of which was thus stated by Reilly J. in 'AIR 1933 Mad 529 at p. 531 (O)', "If it was found on appeal that the suit was based upon a false claim then the whole suit could be dismissed even as against those who had not appealed or had not contested the suit".
Madras High Court Cites 28 - Cited by 7 - Full Document
1   2 Next