Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 11 (0.26 seconds)
Santosh vs Kamata Prasad on 15 January, 2026 cites

Pargat Singh And Others vs Lehna Singh And Others on 29 September, 2022

"13.1.......However, in Second Appeal under Section 100 of the CPC, the High Court, by impugned judgment and order has interfered with the Judgment and Decree passed by the First Appellate Court. While interfering with the judgment and order passed by the first Appellate Court, it appears that while upsetting the judgment and decree passed by the First Appellate Court, the High Court has again appreciated the entire Signature Not Verified Signed by: VINDESH RAIKWAR Signing time: 15-Jan-26 6:43:07 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:1325 5 SA-1036-2025 evidence on record, which in exercise of powers under Section 100 CPC is not permissible. While passing the impugned judgment and order, it appears that High Court has not at all appreciated the fact that the High Court was deciding the Second Appeal under Section 100 of the CPC and not first appeal under Section 96 of the CPC. As per the law laid down by this Court in a catena of decisions, the jurisdiction of High Court to entertain second appeal under Section 100 CPC after the 1976 Amendment, is confined only when the second appeal involves a substantial question of law. The existence of 'a substantial question of law' is a sine qua non for the exercise of the jurisdiction under Section 100 of the CPC.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 1 - Cited by 17 - A S Sangwan - Full Document

Dilbagrai Punjabi vs Sharad Chandra on 8 August, 1988

In Dilbagrai Punjabi vs. Sharad Chandra [1988 Supple. SCC 710], while dealing with a Second Appeal of 1978 decided by the Madhya Pradesh High Court on 20.8.81, L.M.Sharma, J.(as he then was) observed that "The Court (the first appellate Court) is under a duty to examine the entire relevant evidence on record and if it refuses to consider important evidence having direct bearing on the disputed issue and the error which arises as of a magnitude that it gives birth to a substantial question of law, the High Court is fully authorised to set aside the finding. This is the situation in the present case."
Supreme Court of India Cites 4 - Cited by 121 - L M Sharma - Full Document

Sundra Naicka Vadiyar (Dead) By Lrs. And ... vs Ramaswami Ayyar (Dead) By His Lrs. on 7 January, 1992

Again in Sundra Naicka Vadiyar vs. Ramaswami Ayyar [1995 Suppl. (4) SCC Signature Not Verified Signed by: VINDESH RAIKWAR Signing time: 15-Jan-26 6:43:07 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:1325 7 SA-1036-2025 534], it was held that where certain vital documents for deciding the question of possession were ignored - such as a compromise, an order of the revenue Court -
Supreme Court of India Cites 0 - Cited by 60 - J S Verma - Full Document

Smt. Mehrunnisa & Ors vs Smt. Visham Kumari & Anr on 2 December, 1997

In yet another case in Mehrunissa vs. Visham Kumari [1998 (2) SCC 295] arising out of Second appeal of 1988 decided on 15.1.1996, it was held by Venkataswami, J. that a finding arrived at by ignoring the second notice issued by the landlady and without noticing that the suit was not based on earlier notices, was vitiated finding. This was in Second Appeal of 1988 decided on 15.1.1996.
Supreme Court of India Cites 9 - Cited by 47 - K Venkataswami - Full Document
1   2 Next