Today CPC advt Suriyanarayanan

[1/1, 12:12] Cpc G. Surya Narayanan Mhc Advt: Very happy new year to all members 💐💐💐
Section 100
2010(1) SCJ 801

*Bhag Singh vs Jaskirat Singh & others *

Plea that high court dismissed second appeal without going into construction and genuineness of two Will- Held, there is substantial question of law in the controversy regarding Will and High court directed to consider

Order 6 rule 17; order 8 rule 9

2010(1) SCJ 919

*Olympic Industries vs Mulla Hussainy Bhai Mulla Akberally & others *

Mere delay is not sufficient to refuse to allow amendment of pleading or filing additional counter statement , when no prejudice is caused to opposite parties- court should be more generous in allowing counter statement than in the case of plaintiff

Order 7 rule 11

2010(1) SCJ 697

*Dwarika Prasad vs Rameshwar Dayal Khendel Wal & others *

Application for rejection of plaint for non-disclosure of cause of action rejected by trial court- Revision dismissed- Supreme Court granted stay of proceeding under section 10- trial court noticed suit filed earlier is in trial stage and application filed only to delay proceeding of that suit- held, proper
[1/2, 17:57] Cpc G. Surya Narayanan Mhc Advt: ORDER XXI RULE 89 –

2010 (1) SCJ 360

BANDA CHINNA SUBBARAYUDU AND OTHERS VS. THAILAM VISHWANATHA RAO AND ANOTHER

Property sold in executing proceedings – on appeal, execution proceedings stayed – application filed to set aside sale that the deposit made by appellant was less and application had been filed beyond the period of limitation – set aside petition dismissed and confirmed by Appellate Court – High Court found in favour of appellant for amount of deposit but upheld the order on the question of limitation – the period of stay will be excluded under Article 127 of the Limitation Act – Appeal allowed

ORDER XXXIX RULE 1 AND 2, SECTION 151 –

2010 (1) SCJ 821

JULIEN EDUCATIONAL TRUST VS. SOURENDRA KUMAR ROY AND OTHERS

Trial Court rejected application for interim injunction in a suit for specific performance, praying not to encumber or change the character of the suit property – on appeal High Court granted injunction against respondents 1 to 8– subsequently as the property transferred to respondents 9 to 11 the injunction vacated – 9 to 11 added as parties to the suit and filed fresh application for injunction – added respondents sought rejection of plaint, which was dismissed and injunction granted – High Court set aside the order which partially rendered the suit infructuous – injunction granted and parties were directed to go for trial.

ORDER XLIII RULE 1 –

2010 (1) SCJ 724

JASWANT KAUR AND ANOTHER VS. SUBHASH PALIWAL AND OTHERS

Appeal before the High Court from Order remanding a case by Appellate Court is maintainable.

Leave a Reply

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

Call Now ButtonCALL ME