Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 14 (0.69 seconds)
Dilbagh Singh vs Ishari & Ors on 19 March, 2026 cites

Tulsi & Ors vs Chandrika Prasad. & Ors on 24 August, 2006

30. It would be relevant to note that the present Regular Second Appeal has been filed under Section 41 of the Punjab Courts Act, 1918 and not under Section 100 of CPC and that in paragraph 27 of the judgment of the Constitutional Bench (Five Judges Bench) of the Hon'ble Supreme Court PUNEET SACHDEVA 2026.03.23 17:15 in the case of Pankajakshi (dead) through legal representatives and others I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh RSA No.2373 of 1992 (O&M) 21 Vs. Chandrika and others and other connected matters reported as (2016) 6 Supreme Court Cases 157, it was observed that since Section 97(1) of the Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act, 1976, has no application to Section 41 of the Punjab Courts Act, it would necessarily continue as a law in force. Section 41 of the Punjab Courts Act provides that an appeal would lie to the High Court from every decree passed in appeal by any Court subordinate to the High Court on any of the grounds mentioned therein and one such ground, i.e., ground No.(a) is when the decision is contrary to law or to some custom or usage having the force of law. The findings of the First Appellate Court, as has been discussed hereinabove, have been found to be contrary to settled law and thus, deserve to be set aside.
Supreme Court of India Cites 7 - Cited by 35 - S B Sinha - Full Document
1   2 Next