Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 8 of 8 (0.86 seconds)Section 27 in The Limitation Act, 1963 [Entire Act]
Article 65 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
The Limitation Act, 1963
Section 96 in The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [Entire Act]
Sheodan Singh vs Smt. Daryao Kunwar on 14 January, 1966
Thus, as per the said judgment every day of trespasser gives right to file a
fresh suit every day i.e. every day of illegal trespass gives a fresh cause of
action, of course till after expiry of a period of 12 years as per Article 65
of the Limitation Act read with Section 27 of the said Act. The said
judgment supports the arguments of plaintiff that the cause of action is
recurring, but, it is recurring subject to law of limitation i.e. Article 65 &
Section 27 of Limitation Act.
Mohammad Khalil Khan vs Mahbub Ali Mian on 31 May, 1948
In Khalil Khan Vs. Mahbub Ali AIR 1949 PC 78 it was observed that as
to identity of cause of action, one workable test, though not conclusive, is
whether the same evidence would support the claim in both the suits. If
the reply is in affirmative, a fresh suit will be barred. If it is the negative, a
fresh suit will lie.
Mahesh Chand vs Sumnesh Kumar Chaturvedi on 18 November, 2014
Though plaintiff filed judgments in support of the said ground, with due
respect, it is submitted that the said judgments are not applicable to the
issue in hand. His contentions do find strength from judgment titled as
Mahesh Chand Vs. Sumesh Kumar Chaturvedi dated 18.11.2014 in CM
(M) No. 455/2014 of Hon'ble Delhi High Court, wherein while dealing
with scope of Order IX Rule 9 CPC in a suit filed by owner against alleged
trespasser, Hon'ble High Court observed as under:-
1