Showing : 21-30 of 37 Results

PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
Year of decision: 1999
Details
Civil Procedure Code, 1908, Section 115-- Maintainability of revision against interim order - If interim order will occasion a failure of justice or cause irreparable injury to the party against whom it was made - Section 115 must come to the rescue of aggrieved party - High Court cannot fail in its duty in not interfering in those cases..........
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Year of decision: 1998
Details
Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961, Section 50(1), Civil Procedure Code, 1908, Section 115-- Revision - Scope of High Court's power under the two statutes - Comparison...........
PUNJAB AND HARAYANA HIGH COURT
Year of decision: 1998
Details
Civil Procedure Code, 1908, Section 115, Order 39, Rule 1, 2-- Trial Court as well as Appellate Court declined interim injunction - Prima facie findings of Courts below based on valid reasons - Interference in revision under Section 115 - Declined...........
PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
Year of decision: 1998
Details
Civil Procedure Code, Section 115-- Order 41 ,R. 27(b) - Revision against order of Appellate Court under Order 41 Rule 27 allowing additional evidence - Not maintainable...........
PUNJAB AND HARAYANA HIGH COURT
Year of decision: 1998
Details
Civil Procedure Code, 1908, Section 115(1), Order 18, Rule 17A- - Revision against order dismissing application for additional evidence - Not maintainable - Order does not fulfil requirement of clause (a) nor that of irreparable injury postulated in clause (b) of Proviso to Section 115(1) - Petitioner if fails in suit entitled to challenge in appeal against..........
PUNJAB AND HARAYANA HIGH COURT
Year of decision: 1998
Details
Civil Procedure Code, 1908, Section 115, Order 39, Rule 1, 2-- Trial Court and Appellate Court came to the conclusion that plaintiffs not entitled for interim injunction - Orders passed by Courts below based on prima facie valid evidence and cannot be said to be arbitrary or perverse - Does not call for interference in revision under Section 115...........
PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
Year of decision: 1998
Details
Civil Procedure Code, Section 115-- Order 41 ,R. 27(b) - Revision against order passed by Appellate Court under Order 41 Rule 27(b) for additional evidence - Not maintainable - Gurdev Singh's case AIR 1997 S. C. 3572 Followed...........
PUNJAB AND HARAYANA HIGH COURT
Year of decision: 1998
Details
Civil Procedure Code, 1908, Section 115, Order 18, Rule 17A-- Revision against order rejecting application under Order 18 Rule 17-A - Maintainable - Division Bench judgment in Harvinder Kaur's case 1979 PLJ 562 Followed - Supreme Court judgment in Gurdev Singh's case 1997(2) PLJ 75 Not Applicable because in that case application was under Order 41 Rule..........
PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
Year of decision: 1998
Details
Civil Procedure Code, Section 115(1)-- Proviso Clauses (b) and (a) - Order even if it has not finally or has the effect of finally disposing of suit or other proceedings - High Court has jurisdiction to interfere with the order in revision - Clause (b) of Proviso should be given a liberal construction - Cases which fall under Clause..........
PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
Year of decision: 1998
Details
Civil Procedure Code, Section 115(1)-- Proviso Clauses (a) and (b) - Effect and scope of limitations on revisional jurisdiction of High Court - High Court can interfere in the orders in revision if they fall under Clause (b) of Proviso alone, of course, cases falling under Clause (b) must again be covered under Clauses (a) to (c) of..........

Showing : 21-30 of 37 Results