Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 19 (0.21 seconds)Section 109 in The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [Entire Act]
The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
Mohd. Mohmood Hasan Khan vs Government Of Uttar Pradesh on 29 February, 1956
Similarly, in Mohd. Mohmood Hasan Khan v. Govt. of Uttar Pradesh, (S) AIR 1956 All 457 (FB) an order refusing to restore an appeal dismissed for default of prosecution, though not an interlocutory order, was held not to be a "final order" within the meaning of Article 133 of the Constitution of India.
M/S. Jethanand And Sons vs The State Of Uttar Pradesh on 6 February, 1961
In Jethanand and Sons v State of Uttar Pradesh, 1962 All LJ 108: (AIR 1961 SC 794) it was held:
Shiromani Gurdwara Parbandhak ... vs Raja Shiv Rattan Dev Singh And Ors. on 24 March, 1955
In Shiromani Gurdwara Prabandhak Committee, Anmtsar v. Raja Shiv Rattan Dev Singh, (S) AIR 1955 SC 576, however, the order of remand was held to be a "final order" in view of the fact that decision on three points finally determining the rights of the parties in regard to the ownership of the property had been recorded by the High Court.
Savitri Devi vs Rajul Devi And Ors. on 10 October, 1960
In Savitri Devi v. Rajul Devi, 1960 All LJ 897; AIR 1961 All 245 (FB)) Beg, J. suggested the answer to the question, what is the meaning of the term 'judgment' under Article 135 of the Constitution, as below:
Saiyid Muzhar Hossein vs Mussamat Bodha Bibi And Anr. on 8 December, 1894
Similarly, in (1891) 18 Ind App 6 (PC) (supra) where the liability of the defendant to render account was finally determined, though accourting had still to take place; and Syed Muzhar Husain v. Bodha Bibi, (1895) 22 Ind App 1 (PC), where the validity of the will was determined finally, though subordinate inquiries had still to be made, the order was held to be a "final order".
V.M. Abdul Rahman vs D.K. Cassim And Sons on 19 December, 1932
32. The test of finality was laid down in Abdul Rahman v. D. K. Cassim & Sons, AIR 1933 PC 58 as below: