Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 4 of 4 (0.27 seconds)Arjun Singh vs Mohindra Kumar & Ors on 13 December, 1963
12. No doubt on 16.04.2014 and 12.05.2014, the matter was fixed for
orders after hearing arguments. However, in view of the fact that the
Presiding Officer who heard the arguments has ceased to hold the present
court, the new Presiding Officer would necessarily have to hear the
arguments afresh. Hence, when the application was filed by the petitioner on
01.07.2014, it cannot be said that the matter was merely adjourned for
judgment under Order 20 Rule 1 CPC. Hence, the reasons on the basis of
which the impugned order has been passed and the application of the
petitioner was dismissed would not be correct. The judgment of the Supreme
Court in the case of Arjun Singh vs. Mohindra Kumar (supra) would not
be applicable to the facts of the present case. Accordingly, I set aside the
impugned order dated 25.04.2016. The application of the petitioners under
Order 9 Rule 7 CPC would be heard afresh by the trial court and disposed of
as per law keeping in view the above observations.
Prahlad Singh And Another vs Niyaz Ahmad And Others on 8 February, 2000
4. A perusal of the impugned order shows that the trial court primarily
dismissed the application as not maintainable relying upon the judgment of
the Supreme Court in the case of Arjun Singh vs. Mohindra Kumar & Ors.,
AIR 1964 SC 993, the judgment of this High Court in the case of Suresh
Kumar Mallik vs. M.S.Lakhani & Anr., 84(2000) DLT 21 and the
judgment of the Allahabad High Court in the case of Prahlad Singh & Anr.
vs. Niyaz Ahmad and Ors., AIR 2001 All 78 holding that as arguments have
been heard and the matter was merely been adjourned for pronouncement,
the application under Order 9 Rule 7 CPC was not maintainable as the
matter was not adjourned for hearing.
Suresh Kumar Mallik vs M.S. Lakhani & Anr. on 1 December, 1999
4. A perusal of the impugned order shows that the trial court primarily
dismissed the application as not maintainable relying upon the judgment of
the Supreme Court in the case of Arjun Singh vs. Mohindra Kumar & Ors.,
AIR 1964 SC 993, the judgment of this High Court in the case of Suresh
Kumar Mallik vs. M.S.Lakhani & Anr., 84(2000) DLT 21 and the
judgment of the Allahabad High Court in the case of Prahlad Singh & Anr.
vs. Niyaz Ahmad and Ors., AIR 2001 All 78 holding that as arguments have
been heard and the matter was merely been adjourned for pronouncement,
the application under Order 9 Rule 7 CPC was not maintainable as the
matter was not adjourned for hearing.
1