Cpc G. Surya Narayanan Mhc Advt: Section 115 2009(3) SCJ 470

[12/12, 17:37] Cpc G. Surya Narayanan Mhc Advt: Section 115
2009(3) SCJ 470

Abdul Rehman Shora (d) by L.Rs and others vs State of J& K & another

High court cannot go behind the decree in revisionary jurisdiction arising out of execution proceedings- J.D accepted commissioner report identifying the land- Execution court passed orders compelling J.D to obey the decree- J. D filed documents in revision which were not filed in suit or in execution- Receiving those documents in revision is erroneous and suffers from jurisdictional error- Decree Holder entitled to proceed on the basis of commissioners report

Section 148, order 8 rule 1
2009(3) SCJ 517

Mohammed Yusuf vs Faij Mohammed & others

Grant of time after 30 days to file written statement is not automatic- power of extension should be exercised with caution and for adequate reasons- Extension of time after 90 days only on clear satisfaction of justification for granting such extension- appeal allowed setting aside order of High court

2009(3) SCJ 717
Order 1 rule 10

Muthavalli of sha Madhari Diwan Wakf S.J.Syed Zakrudeen & another vs Syed Zindasha & others

Civil court can direct impleadment of a third party in a suit only in a case where he is proper or necessary party and otherwise an interest in the subject matter- it will not ordinarily entertain a petition for impleadment of third party in a lis pending before such court as it will enlarge the scope and ambitof dispute between parties- it will not also implead third party when a fresh dispute among plaintiff interse claiming title or interse between defendant will be required to be determined

Order 13 rule 10
2009(3) SCJ 779

Lakshmi & another vs Chinnammal @ Rayyammal & others

Appellant filed application in suit for report of forensic expert from court of judicial Magistrate, Satyamangalam, regarding the signature of appellant, allowed- Second report regarding thumb impression of appellant was also received- trial court rejected the application to call for the said report- revision dismissed- court duty being to find out truth, such application should not be refused- Appeal allowed
[12/14, 10:46] Cpc G. Surya Narayanan Mhc Advt: Order 18 rule 17
Vadiraj Nagappa Vernek (d) thr LRs vs Sharad Chand Prabhakar Gogate
2009(3) SCJ 365

Power to recall and examine witness is to be sparingly exercised in appropriate cases and not as general rule that no prejudice is caused to parties- power is not to fill lacunae in evidence but to clear any ambiguity that may arise during course of examination

Order 20 rule 18
2009(3) SCJ 573
Vinodan vs Vishwanathan

Suit for partition on a small piece of land and building between brothers- dispute as to construction of building- trial court granted preliminary decree into two equal share- High court setting aside preliminary decree directed plaintiff not entitled to divide house and could claim charge on property- respondent offered to pay rs5,50,000/- in lieu of share of appellant- appellant directed to receive and deliver vacant possession of property

Order 22 rule 3& 5
2009(3) SCJ 385
Kanhiya Singh Santok Singh & others vs Kartar Singh

Suit for eviction on bona fide requirement- Pending second appeal sons filed application for substitution as Legal Heirs- rejected and appeal dismissed as abated- whether appellant ordinarily carries on business at the time of death of original tenant should be decided by trial court

Order 22 rule 4(4)
2009(3) SCJ 709
T. Gnanavel vs T.S. Kanagaraj & another

Court exempted plaintiff from necessity of substitution of Lrs of defendant who failed to file written statement and to appear and contest the suit- judgement pronounced- high court rightly held decree is nullity as defendant died pending suit and exemption obtained after decree

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Call Now ButtonCALL ME