Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 6 of 6 (0.29 seconds)The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
A. Prabhakaran Nair vs K.P. Neelakantan Pillai on 25 June, 1987
10. To meet this objection, Mr. Amar Vivek, learned counsel for the respondent places reliance on A. Prabhakaran Nair v. K.P. Neelakantan Pillai, A.I.R. 1988 Kerala 267 wherein it was held that the expression "possession of sufficient means" means capacity to raise money and not actual possession of property. The opposite party is not in any way concerned with the issue of notice to the Government pleader.
Pandurang Dhoni Chougule vs Maruti Hari Jadhav on 26 April, 1965
In Pandurang Dhandi Chougule and Ors. v. Maruti Hari Jadhav and Ors., AIR 1966 SC 153, it is held by the Supreme Court that the High Court cannot while exercising its jurisdiction under Section 115, correct errors of fact, however gross they may be, or even errors of law. It can only do so when the said errors have relation to the jurisdiction of the Court to try the dispute itself. It is only in cases where the subordinate Court has exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it by law, or has failed to exercise a jurisdiction so vested, or has acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity that the revisional jurisdiction of the High Court can be properly invoked.
P.V. Chandrasekharan And Ors. vs Thirumalai Chit Funds And Ors. on 4 March, 1988
8. The case of P. V. Chandrasekharan and others (supra) was a case where the petition was filed by the appellants to grant leave to them to appeal as an indigent person and appellants therein were possessed of shares whose value was Rs.80,000/- and also owned land to the extent of 2.16 cents, worth more than Rs. one lakh. It was, therefore, observed that the mere fact that the respondents offer to purchase the properties of Rs. One lakhs and the shares in the company of Rs.54,000/- it cannot be said that there is restraint. It is open to the petitioners to raise money over properties and pay the court fee. It is not open to them to contend that only if it is shown that they are possessed of cash, it can be said that they are possessed of means to pay court fee.
Mithai Lal vs Jagan And Ors. on 27 July, 1937
12. In my opinion, in view of the evidence brought on record, the trial court was not in error in accepting the plea of the respondent that she is not possessed of the means to pay court fee. Even if it is assumed that the trial court was in error in accepting her plea that the FDRs in question are not in her possession, the High Court cannot interfere with
the order passed by the trial court as the error would not amount to material irregularity in the exercise of jurisdiction, as also observed in Mithai Lal's case (supra). The impugned order is certainly within the jurisdiction of the trial Court and not tainted with serious legal infirmity justifying interference.
1