Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 16 (0.28 seconds)The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
Presidency Small Cause Courts Act, 1882
Section 41 in Presidency Small Cause Courts Act, 1882 [Entire Act]
Section 9 in Presidency Small Cause Courts Act, 1882 [Entire Act]
Section 43 in Presidency Small Cause Courts Act, 1882 [Entire Act]
K. Arumugham Naicker And Anr. vs Tiruvalluva Nainar Temple By Its ... on 26 March, 1954
Then in K. Arumugham Naicker v. Tiruvalluva Nainar Temple, the Division Bench of the Madras High Court also took the same view and held as follows:--
Yeshbai And Anr. vs Ganpat Irappa Jangam And Anr. on 24 September, 1973
In this context a reference could usefully be made to a decision of. this Court in Yeshbai v. Ganpat Irappa Jangam and particularly towards the following observations hi paras 27 and 28:--
Nalinakhya Bysack vs Shyam Sunder Haldar And Others on 29 January, 1953
I have quoted the observations of Joshi, J. in extenso to point out that the material provisions of the said Act and the Rules framed thereunder have not been noticed by the learned Judge while deciding the question and the
said decision was given in ignorance of the said statutory provisions. If the provisions viz. Section 48 of the Presidency Small Cause Courts Act, 1882 and the Rules framed thereunder are read with the provisions of Chapt. VII of the Act it is quite obvious that the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 will apply even to the proceedings instituted under Chap. VII of the Act. Once it is held that the provisions of the] Code of Civil Procedure apply to the said proceedings and there is nothing] in the Act providing otherwise, then obviously the provisions of Order 21, Rule 100, of the Civil P. C. will also apply to the proceedings instituted under Chapter VII of the Presidency Small Cause Courts Act, 1882.