Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 18 (0.22 seconds)Article 226 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Meharban And Anr. vs Punjab Wakf Board And Anr. on 30 March, 1998
Relying on the aforementioned judgment of the Constitution Bench this Court has taken the view in the cases of Meharban v. Punjab Walkf Board (supra and Harinder Kumar (supra) that such like issues can be treated and decided as issues o law under Order 14, Rule 2(2) of the Code. Similarly, the other issues concerning limitation, maintainability and court fee could always be treated as preliminary issues as no detail evidence is required to be led. Evidence of a formal nature even with regard to preliminary issues has to be led because these issues would either create a bar in accordance with law in force or they are jurisdictional issues. Therefore, even on merits, J have no hesitation in holding that the order dated 5.5.1995 does not suffer from any legal infirmity.
Aribam Tuleshwar Sharma vs Aribam Pishak Sharma And Ors. on 25 January, 1979
Relying upon the judgments in the cases of Aribam Tuleshwar Sharma (supra) and Smt. Meera Bhanja (Supra), their Lordships of the Supreme Court observed as under;-
Manipur Land Revenue and Land Reforms Act, 1960
Section 115 in The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [Entire Act]
Article 181 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Article 182 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Parsion Devi & Ors vs Sumitri Devi & Ors on 14 October, 1997
16. It is also pertinent to mention the observations of the Supreme Court in the case of Parsion Devi and Ors. v. Sumitri Devi and Ors., (1997)8 S.C.C. 715.
Major S. S. Khanna vs Brig. F.J. Dillon on 14 August, 1963
7. Shri G.S. Bhatia, learned counsel for the plaintiff-petitioner has made three submissions. His first contention is that the object of adding Rule 2 to Order 14 by amendment of 1976 in the Code is that it is mandatory for the Court to pronounce the judgment on all the issues, The only exception incorporated in Sub-rule (2) is that if the Court is of the opinion that the suit or any part thereof may be disposed of on an issue of law only, it may try that issue first as preliminary issue. According to the learned Counsel, the exercise of this discretion by the court is limited if it reaches the conclusion that the issue to be so tried relates to the jurisdiction of the Court or the suit could be disposed of on an issue of law only. He has submitted that it would be an illegality in exercise of jurisdiction if the procedure envisaged under Order 14, Rule 2 of the Code is not followed. Therefore, the four issues directed to be tried as preliminary issues could not be treat2d as preliminary issues and the order dated 5.5.1995 being patently illegal was liable to be reviewed and the impugned order dismissing the application for review is thus liable to be set aside. His second submission is that the four issues ordered to be treated as preliminary issues are not issues of law only but they are at best mixed issues of law and facts. According to the learned counsel, mixed issues of law and facts cannot be treated as preliminary issues. For this proposition, he has placed reliance on the judgments of this Court in the case of Daljit Singh v. Joginder Singh Sekhon, A.I.R. 1985 Punjab and Haryana 184; Smt. Kam Kali and Anr. v. Sohan Lal, A.I.R. 1985 Punjab and Haryana 124; Sursati v. Bachan Singh and Ors., 1987 P.L.J. 329; Hardwari Lal v Pokhar Mat and Ors., (1978)80 P.L.R. 252; Major S.S. Khanna v. Brig.