A revisional court not to entertain a revision against an order rejecting on merits an application for review of an appealable decree, which is, if the revisional court sets aside or modifies or alters a trial court’s decree, the decree of the trial court would merge in the one passed by the revisional court. In consequence, the right of the party aggrieved by the trial court’s decree to file an appeal would get affected.

A suit under Section 6 of the Act is often called a summary suit inasmuch as the enquiry in the suit under Section 6 is confined to finding out the possession and dispossession within a period of six months from the date of the institution of the suit ignoring the question of title. Sub-Section (3) of Section 6 provides that no appeal shall lie from any order or decree passed in any suit instituted under this Section. No review of any such order or decree is permitted. The remedy of a person unsuccessful in a suit under Section 6 of the Act is to file a regular suit establishing his title to the suit property and in the event of his succeeding he will be entitled to recover possession of the property notwithstanding the adverse decision under Section 6 of the Act.

Whether the Bishop’s service is a ‘personal service’ at all and as to whether the ingredient of volition is at all a relevant factor after the 2018 Amendment, demands that the plaint should not be rejected at the outset, thereby precluding the plaintiff/opposite party from canvassing the dispute raised. Several allegations made in the plaint, on a plain and meaningful reading, disclose sufficient cause of action to institute the action. There is no bar of law as well, ex facie evident from the plaint, to justify the rejection of the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

BEFORE THE LD DISTRICT JUDGE AT HOWRAH Civil Revisional jurisdiction Civil Revision no                  OF      2019  In the Mater of An application U/S 115 A of The Civil Procedure  Code [ West Bengal State Amendment] And In the matter of   XYZ Chess Association                              ……   Petitioner Revisionist /Defendant vs  District Chess association                 […]

BALAKRISHNA KAR AND ANOTHER Vs. H.K. MAHATAB- It should therefore be borne in mind that the right to begin is not the same as the adducing of evidence in support of a party’s case. There is a distinction between the two. It is open to the plaintiff to say that although he has the right to begin he may rest content with relying upon the averments made in the written statement and may say that he does not propose to adduce further evidence, but the plaintiff should make this statement before the defendant is called upon to adduce evidence – ORISSA HIGH COURT- 1954

KEYWORDS:- INCIDENTAL PROCEEDING- SUPPLEMENTAL PROCEEDING-PLENARY JURISDICTION AIR 2007 SC 1103 : (2006) 9 Suppl. SCR 583 : (2006) 13 SCC 136 : (2006) 12 SCALE 649 (SUPREME COURT OF INDIA) G. L. Vijain Appellant Versus K. Shankar Respondent (Before : S. B. Sinha And Markandey Katju, JJ.) Civil Appeal No. 5183 of 2006 (arising out of SLP (C) No. 23738 […]

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA in Major S. S. Khanna Versus Brig. F. J. Dillon[AIR 1964 SC 497 : (1964) 4 SCR 409] held 28. Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure reads as follows: “The High Court may call for the record of any case which has been decided by any Court subordinate to such High Court and in which no appeal […]

Recent Updates