Man Kaur (dead) by LRS. Vs Hartar Singh Sangha-Order III, Rules 1 and 2 CPC, empowers the holder of power of attorney to “act” on behalf of the principal. In our view the […]
Whether a witness can be produced without Court Summons in Civil Suit ?
Mange Ram Vs Brij Mohan and others[03-08-1983]-Whether a witness can be produced without being summoned through the Court and without his name being mentioned in the list of witnesses in Civil Suit? […]
What will happen if a party to a suit does not stand on witness box and states his case on Affidavit ?
Vidhyadhar Vs Mankikrao and another(17-03-1999)-When a party to the suit does not appear into the witness box and states his own case on oath and does not offer himself to be cross-examined by the […]
Whether pleadings can be directed to be amended after hearing of a case begins?
Vidyabai & Ors. Versus Padmalatha & Anr.-However, proviso appended to Order VI, Rule 17 of the Code restricts the power of the court. It puts an embargo on exercise of its jurisdiction. The court’s jurisdiction, in a case of this nature is limited. Thus, unless the jurisdictional fact, as envisaged therein, is found to be existing, the court will have no jurisdiction at all to allow the amendment of the plaint.
If a plaint is returned under O7-R10 & 10A of CPC, for presinting before a proper court, whether the suit shall proceed de novo or will it continue from the stage at returning of the plaint?
If a plaint is returned under Order VII Rule 10 and 10A of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, for presentation in the court in which it should have been instituted, whether […]
Whether a stranger can be permitted to file a civil appeal in any proceedings?
Section 96 and 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure provide for preferring an appeal from any original decree or from decree in appeal respectively. The aforesaid provisions do not enumerate the categories of persons who can file an appeal. However, it is a settled legal proposition that a stranger cannot be permitted to file an appeal in any proceedings unless he satisfies the Court that he falls with the category of aggrieved persons.
Vishin N. Khanchandani and Anr Vs Vidya Lachmandas Khanchandani and Anr-16/08/2000.
Whether the nominee specified in the National Savings Certificate, on the death of its holder, becomes entitled to the sum due under the certificate to the exclusion of all other persons?, or whether the amount of the certificate can be retained by him for the benefit of the legal heirs of the deceased?
S. P. Chengalvaraya Naidu (dead) by L.Rs. Vs Jagannath (dead) by L.Rs. and ors -27/10/1993
Civil Procedure Code, 1908—Section 2(2)—Decree—Nullity—Decree obtained by fraud—Duty of litigant to come to the Court with true case and to prove it with true evidence—Withholding of vital documents in order to gain advantage over the other parties—The decree obtained by fraud is a nullity.
Hari Narain Vs Badri Das-04/03/1963
It is of utmost importance that in making material statements and setting forth grounds in applications for special leave made under Article 136 of the Constitution, care must be taken not to make any statements which are inaccurate, untrue and misleading. In dealing with applications for special leave, the Court naturally takes statements of fact and grounds of fact contained in the petitions at their face value and it would be unfair to betray the confidence of the Court by making statements which are untrue and misleading.
Dalip Singh Versus State of U.P. and ORS -03/12/2009
False statement on oath-it is clear that in this case efforts to mislead the authorities and the courts have transmitted through three generations and the conduct of the appellant and his son to mislead the High Court and this Court cannot, but be treated as reprehensible. They belong to the category of persons who not only attempt, but succeed in polluting the course of justice.
Karam Kapahi and Ors Vs Lal Chand Public Charitable Trust and Another: 07/04/2010
Civil Procedure Code, 1908—Order 12, Rule 6—Judgment on admission—Termination of lease—Non-payment of rent—Prayer for judgment on admission under Order 12, Rule 6 of CPC-Where controversy is between parties on an admission of non-payment of rent, judgment can be rendered on admission by Court—Club seeks to approbate and reprobate—Club was very negligent in pursuing its case—Doctrine of election squarely applies as Club has advanced inconsistent pleas—Club not entitled to any discretionary remedy—
Himani Alloys Ltd. Vs Tata Steel Ltd-05/07/2011
JUDGMENT ON ADMISSION-It is true that a judgment can be given on an “admission” contained in the minutes of a meeting. But the admission should be categorical. It should be a conscious and deliberate act of the party making it, showing an intention to be bound by it. Order 12 Rule 6 being an enabling provision, it is neither mandatory nor peremptory but discretionary. The court, on examination of the facts and circumstances, has to exercise its judicial discretion, keeping in mind that a judgment on admission is a judgment without trial which permanently denies any remedy to the Defendant, by way of an appeal on merits.
Bhagwati Prasad Sah and others Vs Dulhin Rameshwari Kuer and another-07/05/1951
Evidence Act, 1872—Sections 101 to 104—Burden of proof—Joint Hindu Family—Presumption of—A Hindu family is presumed to be joint unless proved to the contrary—The burden of proving the status of the family is on the person claiming the relief on the basis of such status—It is a question to be determined in each case.
Bhagwat Sharan (Dead Thr. Lrs.) vs Purushottam & Ors-03/04/2020
Hindu Undivided Family-It is held that where one of the coparceners separated himself from other members of the joint family there was no presumption that the rest of coparceners continued to constitute a joint family. However, it is also held that at the same time there is no presumption that because one member of the family has separated, the rest of the family is no longer a joint family.
Smt. Asha Devi Vs Dukhi Sao and another-08/08/1974
Civil Procedure Code, 1908—Section 100 and 101—Appeal—Letters Patent Appeal—Scope of—A Division Bench hearing appeal against the Judgment of single Judge is not limited to question of law as in case of Second Appeal but whole matter is open in respect of both questions of law as well as fact.
Sahu Madho Das and others Vs Mukand Ram and another-22/03/1955
Family arrangement—Implied arrangements—Conduct of members of family can be considered to ascertain that family arrangement in fact existed—Circumstances in which registration of family arrangement necessary, indicated.
Kale and others VS Deputy Director of Consolidation and others- 21/01/1976
FAMILY SETTLEMENT-the family settlement arrived at by the parties was oral, and the petition filed by them on August 7, 1956 before the Assistant Commissioner was merely an information of an already completed oral transaction. In other words, the petition was only an intimation to the Revenue court or authority that the matters in dispute between the parties had been settled amicably between the members of the family, and no longer required determination and that the mutation be effected in accordance with that antecedent family settlement. Since the petition did not itself create or declare any rights in immovable property of the value of Rupees 100 or upwards, it was not hit by Sec. 17 (1) (b) of the Registration Act, and as such was not compulsorily registrable.
Umer khan Vs Bismillabi @ Babulal Shaikh and others-28/07/2011
Section 100 Code of Civil Procedure jurisdiction of the High Court to entertain a second appeal is confined only to such appeals which involve a substantial question of law
Shiv Cotex Vs Tirgun Auto Plast P. Ltd. and Others-30/08/2011
SECOND APPEAL-It is, open to the High Court to reframe substantial question of law or frame substantial question of law afresh or hold that No. substantial question of law is involved at the time of hearing the second appeal but reversal of the judgment and decree passed in appeal by a court subordinate to it in exercise of jurisdiction under Section 100 of the Code is impermissible without formulating substantial question of law and a decision on such question.
P. Lakshmi Reddy Vs L. Lakshmi Reddy-05/12/1956
Limitation Act, 1963—Articles 64 and 65—Adverse possession—Co-owner—Permissibility—Sole possession by one co-owner is not sufficient—There must be open assertion of hostile title against the other.
