Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 15 (0.22 seconds)Section 114 in The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [Entire Act]
Badrunnisha Mohmmad Sikadar vs Keshiben Jethalal Parmar on 7 April, 2000
7. The senior counsel for the plaintiffs/applicants has drawn
attention to Badrunnisha Mohammad Sikadar Vs. Keshiben
Jethalal Parmar 2000 AIHC 3589: MANU/GJ/0233/2000 wherein a
single judge of the Gujarat High Court relying upon Thakur Singh
Vs. Dinanath Sah AIR 1937 Pat 528 held that withdrawal of the
appeal must be treated as if it had never been preferred within the
meaning of Order 47 Rule 1 of the CPC and in view thereof held that
it cannot be contended that review application is not maintainable
for the reason of appeal having been preferred against the order
sought to be reviewed.
Balling Vithaling Sakharpekar vs Shri Devasthan Fund on 24 September, 1930
Reference in the said judgment is also made
to Balling Vithaling Sakharpekar Vs. Shri Devasthan Fund
(1931) 33 BOMLR 378 containing the observation that if a litigant
who has filed an appeal wishes to apply for a review he may do so if
he first withdraws his appeal; when there is no appeal on record he
is entitled to the benefit of a fiction that none has been preferred.
R.A.No.253/09 with IA No.8652/09 & IA No.8653/09 in CS(OS)1225/2008 Page 3 of 11
The Bombay High Court however held that the fiction was not
available to the applicant in that case since an appeal in that case
was actually on record. The senior counsel for the
plaintiffs/applicants thus contended the review to be maintainable in
the present case and also made submissions on merits of the review
application.
Thungabhadra Industries Ltd vs The Government Of Andhra Pradesh on 22 October, 1963
a. Thungabhadra Industries Ltd. Vs. The Govt. of
Andhra Pradesh AIR 1964 SC 1372 holding that the
crucial date for determining whether or not the terms of
Order 47 Rule 1(1) are satisfied is the date when the
application for review is filed; if on that date no appeal
has been filed it is competent for the court hearing the
petition for review to dispose of the application on merits
notwithstanding the pendency of the appeal, subject only
to this, that if before the application for review is finally
decided the appeal itself has been disposed of, the
jurisdiction of the court hearing in the review petition
would come to an end;
U.P.Avas Evam Vikas Parishad & Anr vs Ravi Kumar Anand & Ors.Withcivil Appeal ... on 2 May, 1995
d. U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad Vs. Ravi Kumar
Anand AIR 1995 SC 2076 holding that the High Court
could not have re-opened the matter by way of a review
petition when it was not permitted by the Supreme Court
in Special Leave Petitions preferred against the order
reviewed and effect of which review if permitted would
be to disturb the finality of the earlier decision;
e. Sree Narayana Dharma Sanghom Trust Vs. Swami
Prakasananda AIR 1996 Kerala 203 holding that where
the Special Leave Petition is dismissed by the Supreme
Court, the order of the High Court merges with that of
the Supreme Court and review by the High Court is not
permissible;
Sree Narayana Dharma Sanghom Trust vs Swami Prakasananda And Ors. on 16 January, 1996
d. U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad Vs. Ravi Kumar
Anand AIR 1995 SC 2076 holding that the High Court
could not have re-opened the matter by way of a review
petition when it was not permitted by the Supreme Court
in Special Leave Petitions preferred against the order
reviewed and effect of which review if permitted would
be to disturb the finality of the earlier decision;
e. Sree Narayana Dharma Sanghom Trust Vs. Swami
Prakasananda AIR 1996 Kerala 203 holding that where
the Special Leave Petition is dismissed by the Supreme
Court, the order of the High Court merges with that of
the Supreme Court and review by the High Court is not
permissible;
M. Ramanamma vs Commissioner Of Survey Settlement And ... on 13 December, 1999
9. The counsels for the defendants have also referred to other
judgments on the scope of review and on condonation of delay in
applying for review but it is not felt necessary to burden this order
with the same. The counsels for the defendants have also
distinguished the judgment of the Gujarat High Court aforesaid. It is
pointed out that in that case the Appellate Court had held that if the
facts pointed out and urged in appeal were presented to the trial
court in a review application, the applicant may be able to persuade
the court to review the order impugned in the appeal and for this
purpose withdrawal of the appeal was allowed.
Manik Lal Majumdar & Ors vs Gouranga Chandra Dey & Ors on 12 January, 2005
12. The Supreme Court in Manik Lal Majumdar Vs. Gouranga
Chandra Dey (2005) 2 SCC 400 while relying on the aforesaid
dictionary meaning of "Prefer", interpreted the same occurring in
Section 20 of Tripura Buildings Lease and Rent Control Act as not
barring the institution of the appeal but barring the prosecution
thereof. The Rent Act in that case prohibited a tenant from
preferring an appeal without making the requisite deposit of rent.
The Supreme Court gave a purposive meaning to the word "Prefer"
for the reason that if the said word was held to be barring the very
institution of the appeal, the appeal may become time barred by the
time the requisite deposit could be made.
Commissioner Of Income Tax (Central) ... vs B. N.Bhattacharjee & Anr on 4 May, 1979
In this regard, reference may also be made to Commissioner
of Income Tax (Central) Vs. B.N. Bhattacharjee AIR 1979 SC
1725 where it was held that preferring an appeal means more than
formally filing it, but effectively pursuing it; if a party retreats before
the contest begins it is as good as not having entered the fray. In
that case, there was a bar to the settlement commission's jurisdiction
if an appeal had been preferred; though appeals had been filed but
withdrawn before the application for settlement was made. The
Supreme Court held that the word "Preferred" is a word of dual
import, it's semantics depend on the scheme and the context. It's
import must help, not hamper the object of the enactment even if
liberty with language may be necessary.