Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 8 of 8 (0.68 seconds)The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
Syed Mohd. Salie Labbai (Dead) By L.Rs. ... vs Mohd. Hanifs (Dead) By L.Rs. And Ors on 22 March, 1976
Sushil Kumar Metha vs Gobind Ram Bohra on 10 November, 1989
25. It is relevant also to quote the observations in case law titled
as Sushil Kumar Mehta v. Gobind Ram Bohra 1990 (1)
SCC 193 wherein Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the
principle of res judicata cannot be fit into the pigeon hole of
'mixed question of law and facts' in every case. Rather, the
plea of res judicata would be a question of law or fact or a
mixed question of both depending on the issue that is claimed
to have been previously decided. The court while determining
the applicability of the plea of res judicata would determine if
Digitally signed
NEETU by NEETU
NAGAR
NAGAR Date:
Legal Representatives Of Decd.Patel ... vs Legal Representatives Of Decd.Patel ... on 9 July, 2014
In a more recent decision in Nand Ram (Dead) Through
Legal Representatives v. Jagdish Prasad (Dead) Through
Legal Representatives on 19th March, 2020, a Bench of two
judges reiterated the principle that if a matter has only
collaterally or in an auxiliary manner been in issue or decided
in an earlier proceeding, the finding would not ordinarily be
res judicata in a later proceeding where the matter is directly
and substantially in issue. Justice Hemant Gupta (writing for a
two judge bench) noted that the material test to be applied is
whether the adjudication of the issue is material and essential
for the decision.
Section 10 in The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [Entire Act]
Sri N Venugopal Reddy vs M/S Ondot Corporate Services Pvt Ltd on 22 July, 2019
43. Even otherwise, the present suit for perpetual and mandatory
injunction on the basis of easementary right is not
maintainable. Reliance can be placed on observation of
Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in Misc First Appeal
No.5550 of 2019 (CPC) in N. Venugopal Reddy Vs. Ms
Ondot Corpopate Services Pvt. Ltd. & Anr., being
reproduced as follows:-
Babu Lal & Ors vs Smt. Usha Verma on 14 May, 2019
9. On 16.09.2015, the defendants filed a suit being CS 378/15
(Babu Lal & Ors v. Smt. Usha), subsequently renumbered as
CS 51498/16, inter-alia, seeking a decree of permanent
injunction restraining the defendant (plaintiff herein) or any
person claiming through her from dispossessing and
preventing the plaintiffs (defendants herein) from using the
terrace of the 4th Floor of the property no. B-11-B, Sanwal
Nagar, New Delhi - 110049 and/or other reliefs. The
application of the defendant under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and
2 inter-alia, seeking an ad- interim injunction restraining the
defendant (plaintiff herein) from preventing the plaintiffs
(defendants herein) from removing the debris and from free
access to the terrace floor of the 4th floor, was allowed.
1