Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 14 (0.24 seconds)Section 115 in The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [Entire Act]
Section 42 in The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [Entire Act]
Buddhoo Lal And Anr. vs Mewa Ram on 26 January, 1921
21. A reference was also made to certain observations of learned Judges in --'Budhoo Lal v. Mewa Ram', AIR 1921 All 1 (N). It may be mentioned that the case is a direct authority only for the meaning of the words "case decided", so far as Allahabad High Court is concerned; but Mr. Bhandari relies on certain observations of learned Judges in the course of the judgments delivered in that case. At page 2 Raflq J. observed as follows :
B. Manmohan Lal And Ors. vs B. Raj Kumar Lal And Ors. on 31 October, 1945
23. Mr. Bhandari also referred to the following observations of Malik J., as he then was, in --'Manmohan Lal v. Raj Kumar Lal', AIR 1946 All 89 at p. 105 (P).
Brij Narain vs Mangla Prasad on 24 November, 1923
He relied on the observations of their Lordships of the Privy Council in --'Brij Narain v. Mangla Prasad', AIR 1924 PC 50 (X) where it was said that when a long series of cases, extending over a long period of time when parties are represented by eminent counsel, are decided in a way where if a plea which was evident had been taken and upheld, the decision would have been the other way, there arises an irresistible conclusion that the plea was not taken because it was felt to be bad.
Section 41 in The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [Entire Act]
Chintalapati Murthiraju vs Chintalapati Subbaraju And Ors. on 21 February, 1944
20. Mr. Bhandari has further cited a number of cases of various High Courts where if had been held, when dealing with a question of court fees, that an order passed by a subordinate court demanding further court fees from the plaintiff is revisable even though if the plaintiff fails to pay the court fees a decree rejecting the plaint would follow. The High Courts have further held that no revision by the defendant would lie if the court holds that the court-fee paid is sufficient. Reference in this connection may be made to --'Murthiraju v. Subbaraju', AIR 1944 Mad 315 '(K); --'Mahadeo Gopal v. Hari Waman', AIR 1945 Bom 336 (L); --'Ramkhelawan Sahu v. Bir Surendra Sahi', AIR 1938 Pat 22 (M). In these it has been said that the mere fact that an appeal would lie later from the consequential order passed by the subordinate Judge if the stamp fee were not paid was no ground for refusing to entertain the petition. It may be mentioned that in these cases, the words "in which no appeal lies thereto" were not directly considered, and with all respect to the learned Judges who decided these cases I do not see why the High Court should interfere immediately, and should not wait till the plaintiff fails to deposit the court-fee and the plaint is rejected and an appeal comes to the High Court.
The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
Mahadeo Gopal Pendse vs Hari Waman Bhate on 15 November, 1944
20. Mr. Bhandari has further cited a number of cases of various High Courts where if had been held, when dealing with a question of court fees, that an order passed by a subordinate court demanding further court fees from the plaintiff is revisable even though if the plaintiff fails to pay the court fees a decree rejecting the plaint would follow. The High Courts have further held that no revision by the defendant would lie if the court holds that the court-fee paid is sufficient. Reference in this connection may be made to --'Murthiraju v. Subbaraju', AIR 1944 Mad 315 '(K); --'Mahadeo Gopal v. Hari Waman', AIR 1945 Bom 336 (L); --'Ramkhelawan Sahu v. Bir Surendra Sahi', AIR 1938 Pat 22 (M). In these it has been said that the mere fact that an appeal would lie later from the consequential order passed by the subordinate Judge if the stamp fee were not paid was no ground for refusing to entertain the petition. It may be mentioned that in these cases, the words "in which no appeal lies thereto" were not directly considered, and with all respect to the learned Judges who decided these cases I do not see why the High Court should interfere immediately, and should not wait till the plaintiff fails to deposit the court-fee and the plaint is rejected and an appeal comes to the High Court.