Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 6 of 6 (0.17 seconds)Beg Ram And Anr. vs Charan Das And Ors. on 3 October, 1950
In view of the fact that there existed no rule of limitation for the filing of revision petitions in Himachal Pradesh prior to the said decision of this Court published in the January 1951 issue of the A. I. R., I would hold that the delay in the filing of the present revision petition has been sufficiently explained by
the fact that the petitioner's application for review was pending from 3-7-1950 to 28-11-1950.
Jagannath And Ors. vs Balwant Singh Anr. on 25 May, 1922
That pendency of other remedy had recourse to by the petitioner may be taken as sufficient explanation of delay finds support from a ruling of the late Oudh Chief Court reported as 'JAGANNATH v. BIKARMAJIT SINGH', AIR 1929 Oudh 383. The first preliminary objection has therefore no force.
A.H. Ghaznavi And Anr. vs Sardar Gurcharan Singh on 3 May, 1937
In support of this objection the learned counsel cited two rulings: 'THAVASIKANNU THEVAR v. SANKARALINGAM PILLAI', AIR 1938 Mad 217, and 'A.H. GHAZNAVI v. GURCHARAN SINGH', AIR 1937 All 691.
Thavasikannu Thevar And Ors. vs S. Sankaralingam Pillai on 24 September, 1937
In support of this objection the learned counsel cited two rulings: 'THAVASIKANNU THEVAR v. SANKARALINGAM PILLAI', AIR 1938 Mad 217, and 'A.H. GHAZNAVI v. GURCHARAN SINGH', AIR 1937 All 691.
Maharani Nilimaprova vs Kadambini Dasi on 21 March, 1944
It is however clear from the Allahabad ruling cited by the learned counsel for the plaintiff-respondent himself that revision would be barred only where a first or a second appeal lay to the High Court. In other words, the word 'thereto' in Section 115 refers to the High Court. 'NILIMAPROVA v KADAMBINI DASI', AIR 1944 Cal 309. In the present case, while an appeal against the order in question did no doubt He to the District Judge under Order 43, Rule 1 (d), C. P. Code, a second appeal to this Court would have been barred under Section 104 (2) of the Civil Procedure Code. The second objection with regard to the incompetency of the present revision has also therefore no force.
1