Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 16 (0.32 seconds)The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
Section 21 in The Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 [Entire Act]
Section 22 in The Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 [Entire Act]
The Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887
G.P. Srivastava vs Shri R.K. Raizada & Ors on 3 March, 2000
In G.P. Srivastava v. R.K. Raizada a similar
question came up for consideration. A Division Bench
of this Court opined that the provision under Order 9
Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure should receive
a broad construction and no hard-and-fast guidelines
can be prescribed. The courts have a wide discretion
to set aside an ex parte decree on satisfying itself as
regards existence of a "sufficient cause", opining:
S. L. Kapoor vs Jagmohan & Ors on 18 September, 1980
22. Admittedly, partition had been effected between the parties by
metes and bounds. He could at least in the final decree proceedings,
raise several objections as regards allotment of lands. He did not get
such an opportunity. Where principles of natural justice are required to
13
be complied with, non affording of an opportunity itself causes prejudice.
{See S.L. Kapoor v. Jagmohan [(1980) 4 SCC 379]}.
Bhanu Kumar Jain vs Archana Kumar & Anr on 17 December, 2004
In Bhanu Kumar Jain v. Archana Kumar and another [(2005) 1
SCC 787] this Court held :