Skip to content

Filter by :

Search Results Judgments > Act:CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 1908 Section 115 Page:9

Aug 11 2005

Raghubans Mani and Ors. Vs. Mahabir Babu Marwari and Anr., Shree Lalje ...

  • Decided on : 11-Aug-2005

Court : Patna

... of the learned counsel for the petitioner and submits that this Civil Revision is not maintainable as it is against the interlocutory order which does not finally dispose of the suit. Hence, they are no longer revisable under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure after its amendment which came into force on 1.7.2002 ... Insurance Co. Ltd. and Anr., reported in AIR 2003' SC 1561, equivalent to : [2003]1SCR567 , the provision of Section 115 CPC would be attracted in such matters. Hence, it is hereby held that these Civil Revision are maintainable.9. Now, so far the merit of the cases are concerned, it is not in ... Section 115 CPC after its recent amendment which came into force on 1.7.2002. Even according to another decision of the Hon'bie Apex Court in case of Sadhana Lodh v. National Insurance Co. Ltd. and Anr., reported in AIR 2003' SC 1561, equivalent to : [2003]1SCR567 , the provision of Section 115 CPC ... opposite party No. 2 was clearly a necessary party for full, final and proper adjudication of the issues involved in the suits.11. Accordingly, all these Civil Revisions are dismissed and the impugned orders are affirmed and the learned Court below is directed to proceed with the said suit for their early ... a suit for declaration of his title, eviction of the revision petitioners and recovery of arrears of rent, all of which were decreed by the civil Court of proper jurisdiction in Title Appeal No. 132/1998 and in the said judgment and decree dated 7.8.2003 it has been ...

Feb 04 2003

Municipal Council Vs. K. Ravindra and Company and Ors.

  • Decided on : 04-Feb-2003

Court : Mumbai

Reported in : 2003(4)ALLMR672; 2003(6)BomCR287; 2003(2)MhLj987

... Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Bhandara, rejected the above application filed by the present revision-petitioner, which order of rejection is under challenge in this revision.4. The learned counsel for respondent No. 1 assailed the very maintainability of the present revision in view of the amendment of 1999 to Section 115, Civil Procedure Code whereby Clause (b) of proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 115, Civil Procedure Code ... is impugned in the present revision. If the contention of the revision-petitioner is accepted, the suit will stand disposed of finally and thus by virtue of proviso to Section 115, Civil Procedure Code, the revision would be maintainable.5. In support of her proposition about the non-maintainability of the suit, the learned counsel for revision-petitioner cited R. J. Mohammed Yakub ... sued in its assumed name of the business under the provisions of Order 30, Rule 10, Civil Procedure Code, but such a Hindu joint family trading concern cannot sue as a plaintiff in the firm name under the provisions of Order 30, Rule 1, Civil Procedure Code. Such a suit must be brought either by the Karta of the family or by all the ... Order 30, Rule 1, Civil Procedure Code. Such a suit must be brought either by the Karta of the family or by all the members of the joint family who are coparceners. In the cited case, Hindu joint family carrying on business under its assumed name was a party. The provision of Order 30, Rule 10, Civil Procedure Code is also applicable to the ...

Nov 04 2004

Bansidhar Ramratan Upadhyay Vs. Ramchandra Ramnarayan Totla

  • Decided on : 04-Nov-2004

Court : Mumbai

Reported in : 2005(1)ALLMR506; 2005(2)BomCR43

... .P., J.1. By this revision, under Section 115 of Code of Civil Procedure, the original defendants challenge the order dated 15-4-1996 passed by Additional District Judge, Akola in Misc. Civil Appeal No. 173/1994 and the earlier order passed by Civil Judge, Junior Division, Murtizapur dated 11-10-1994 below Exhibit 65 in Regular Civil Suit No. 100/1991. They have prayed for ... paragraphs 29, 30, 31 and 34 of this ruling. The said paragraphs read as under :'29. The Code of Civil Procedure uses different expressions in relation to incidental proceedings and supplemental proceedings. Incidently proceedings are referred to in Part III of the Code of Civil Procedure whereas supplemental proceedings are referred to in Part VI thereof.30. Is there any difference between the two ... no interference is called for in the concurrent impugned orders.4. The preliminary objection raised by Advocate B.N. Mohta is about the maintainability of civil revision. He contends that 2002 amendment to provision of section 115 of C.P.C. clearly show that impugned orders as orders of interim nature and even if order passed on Exh. 65 is in favour ... - Section (1) of section 115 of C.P.C. is to restrict the revisional power of High Court to the extent that no revision will be maintainable against orders which are interlocutory in nature. The said Division Bench further finds that where the Court decides in proceedings which are independent or emanating from a suit finally, power of revision under Section 115 of Code ...

Oct 12 2007

Pradeep Sadashiv Pavgi and Ors. Vs. R.S. Luth Education Trust and Ors. ...

  • Decided on : 12-Oct-2007

Court : Mumbai

Reported in : 2008(1)BomCR677; 2008(1)MhLj919

... that in view of the proviso added to Section 115(1) of the Civil Procedure Code by the Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act, 1999, revision is not tenable because even if the conditional order would have been passed by the trial Court, the suit would not have been finally disposed off. Section 115(1) of the Civil Procedure Code reads as follows:115. Revision.--(1) The High Court may call for ... the impugned order, revision application would lie under Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code and, therefore, when the efficacious remedy is available, writ petition is not tenable. Mr. Kumbhakoni the Learned Counsel for the petitioner/plaintiff has rightly pointed out that in view of the proviso added to Section 115(1) of the Civil Procedure Code by the Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act, 1999, revision is not tenable because ... Dr. J. Chatterjee (1945) 49 Cal WN 246 Das. J., after a comprehensive review of authorities on the subject, stated the principles applicable to cases covered by Order 37, Civil Procedure Code in the form of the following propositions (at p.253):(a) If the defendant satisfies the Court that he has a good defence to the claim on its merits ... the basis of the cheque issued by the defendant for the payment of debt if the cheque is dishonoured.12. Order XXXVII, Rule 1, Sub-rule (2) of the Code of Civil Procedure makes it clear that summary suit can be filed on the basis of (a) bills of exchange, hundies and promissory Notes; (b) suits in which the plaintiff seeks ...

Aug 07 1978

Sidramappa Rachappa Chiniwar and Ors. Vs. Shankaralingappa Veerappa Bi ...

  • Decided on : 07-Aug-1978

Court : Karnataka

Reported in : AIR1979Kant89; ILR1978KAR1713; 1978(2)KarLJ429

... Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act, 1976, to be referred to as the Amendment Act, in execution of a decree on the ground that such property is not liable to such attachment, is adjudicated upon by the Executing Court under Rule 58 of Order XXI of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, as amended by the Amendment Act, to be referred to as the Amended Code ... Section 115 of the old Code. While, however, it was open to the aggrieved party to file also a regular suit to establish the right claimed by him notwithstanding the summary adjudication. But the Amendment Act which has come into force with effect from 1-2-1977 has brought about some alterations in the provisions of the old Code ... Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, as amended by the Amendment Act, to be referred to as the Amended Code, is the order of adjudication so made by the Executing court a decree as would enable the aggrieved party to question the same in an appeal as provided for in the same Rule of the Amended Code ... the orders in question as was admittedly the legal position under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, as it stood prior to its amendment under the Amendment Act, to be referred to as the old Code. This is how the question formulated by me at the outset has ... revision petitions which are filed in the High Court under S. 115 of the Code, seeking revision of the appealable orders, are maintainable. It was not disputed that revision under S. 115 of the new Code would not lie against an order of a Court subordinate to ...

Jul 24 1985

Palghar Rolling Mills Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Visvesvaraya Iron and Steel Ltd. a ...

  • Decided on : 24-Jul-1985

Court : Karnataka

Reported in : AIR1985Kant282; ILR1985KAR3989

... the trial court. It was held that such an order did not amount to a case decided within the meaning of S. 115 C.P.C. and was thus not revisable. Old Section 115 under which the said case was decided read as :'The High Court may call for the record of any case which has been ... Therefore. the mention of S. 151 C.P.C. in I.A. 1 is 13 redundant and meaningless. S. 136 C.P.C. lays 3, 14 down the procedure to be followed when the 13 property to be attached is situate outside the district. Therefore, this submission in this 15 connection merits to be rejected.6. ... First Appeal and the Revision Petition by defendant No. 1 are directed against the order dated 16-2-1983, passed by the Civil Judge, Bhadravathi, in O. S. 10/83, ordering attachment of moveables before judgment.2. The plaintiff filed the suit against defendants 1 and 2 to recover Rs. ... give the source of his information and belief in the matter. A verbatim copy of the provisions of the Code in the affidavit in support of the application, or a mechanical repetition of the language of the Code without an iota or substratum of truth underlying the allegation, is merely colourable and constitutes an abuse of process ... forgotten, that realising the implication' of this ruling, a civil revision petition has also been filed. Therefore, the M.F.A. is not maintainable.15. Learned counsel Srinivasan submitted that the order in question does not amount to a case decided within the meaning of S. 115 C.P.C. and that thus, even the revision ...

Jul 23 2003

L. Puttaiah and Ors. Vs. Annaiapa (Dead by his LRs.) and Ors.

  • Decided on : 23-Jul-2003

Court : Karnataka

Reported in : ILR2003KAR3437

... the respondent No. 1 (a) - plaintiff - 1(a) defended the order. Firstly, he submitted that having regard to the language of Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure as amended, this Civil Revision Petition is not maintainable, inasmuch as, the order of the Trial Court will not have the effect of finally disposing ... far as the objections raised by Sri A.V. Gangadharappa, learned Counsel, about the maintainability of the Revision Petition is concerned, Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, as amended by Act 104 of 1976, reads as under:'(1) The High Court may call for the record of any case ... the Trial Court has totally misdirected about the scope of Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure. What is required to be investigated when an application under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure is filed before the Court is 'whether the presence of a person before ... aside and is set aside accordingly and the applications of the Revision Petitioners filed under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure is allowed. The plaintiffs to amend the cause title on the next date of hearing of the case.10. In the result, Civil ... Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.), Gubbi, against one Udedakalappa and Kalappa for a declaration that they are the owners of the deity 'Kalikanteswara' and also are the Archaks of the said temple and for permanent injunction. During the hearing of the said suit, the Revision Petitioners herein made an application under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure ...

Jan 07 1999

M.N.G. Krishnaiah Vs. Ganeshappa

  • Decided on : 07-Jan-1999

Court : Karnataka

Reported in : ILR1999KAR3762; 1999(5)KarLJ267

... of hearing to the parties.3. I have applied my mind to the contentions raised by the learned Counsel for the parties. Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure confers powers of supervisory nature and exercise jurisdiction of the Court under Section 115 of the CPC by this Court can be made only on establishment of jurisdictional error having been committed. But in every case of ... has expressed the same view. It will be appropriate to refer and quote the following observations of their decision.-'9. When Bill No. 27 of 1974 to amend the CPC, 1908, and the Limitation Act, 1963, containing the amendment proposed by the Law Commission was presented before the Parliament along with the statement of objects, notes of clauses were also presented ... Sri N. Subba Rao, Civil Judge, Senior Division, Kolar Gold Fields in Appeal No. 16 of 1998 condoning the delay of almost sixty-five days in filing of the appeal in exercise of jurisdiction under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. Feeling aggrieved from that order, the plaintiff-respondent has come up in revision under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure.2. The learned Counsel ... . This revision under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure arises from the judgment and order dated August 21, 1998 passed by Sri N. Subba Rao, Civil Judge, Senior Division, Kolar Gold Fields in Appeal No. 16 of 1998 condoning the delay of almost sixty-five days in filing of the appeal in exercise of jurisdiction under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. Feeling ...

Oct 29 1987

Guntupalli Rama Subbayya Vs. Guntupalli Rajamma

  • Decided on : 29-Oct-1987

Court : Andhra Pradesh

Reported in : AIR1988AP226

... Amending Act (of the Code of Civil Procedure) has to be examined for finding out whether there is anything positively, (or by necessary implication) inconsistent in S. 97(3) with the continuance of the substantive right of appeal which vested in the parties on the commencement or on the filing of the petition. Sec. 97(3) clearly states ... either under See. 96 or See. 104 C.P.C., as the case may be. Otherwise it can be revised provided it satisfies the conditions of Sec. 115 C.P.C. It can immediately be noticed that an order passed under Order XX I Rule 2 C.P.C. does not find a place ... . 115 C.P.C. provided the Court is subordinate to it and if such subordinate court appears to have exercised jurisdiction not vested in it by law or to have failed to exercise a jurisdiction so vested or to have acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity. The Code of Civil Procedure ... . 96. Subba Rao, J., (as he then was), speaking for the Full Bench, laid down : 'On a combined reading of Ss. 47, 2(2) and 96, Civil Procedure Code it was apparent that an appeal from an order in execution would he only if the following three conditions are complied with : (1) the order must ... stands abolished.' The above decisions of the Supreme Court, in my opinion, read in the light of S. 97(3) lead to the conclusion that the Civil Procedure Code as amended in 1976 applies to pending applications even though they are disposed of after 1-2-1977 and that the definition of decree in S. ...

Sep 20 2005

T. Basavaraju (Died) per L.Rs. Vs. T. Nagaratnam and Ors.

  • Decided on : 20-Sep-2005

Court : Andhra Pradesh

Reported in : 2006(3)ALD838; 2006(1)ALT135

... of such rejection.Order XVIII - Hearing of the suit and Examination of Witnesses:[Editors Note: This rule is substituted by Clause (b) of Section 12 of the Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act, 2002 (22 of 2002)]Rule 4. Recording of evidence by Commissioner.(1) In every case, the evidence of a witness ... has drawn attention of the Court to Order XIII Rule 3, Order XVIII Rule 4 of C.P.C., Rules 113 and 115 of the Civil Rules of Practice and Sections 35 and 36 of the Indian Stamp Act, which read as under:Order XIII Rule 3: Rejection of Irrelevant or inadmissible ... I Additional District Judge, Rajahmundry, wherein the petition filed by respondents 1 and 2 herein under Order XIII Rule 4 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure to direct the petitioner herein to pay stamp duty and penalty and obtain registration of the document i.e. Ex.B-38 ... its admissibility or proof. Before the Code of Civil Procedure was amended, the questions as to admissibility and proof used to be considered during the course of chief-examination of a witness through whom the documents are introduced. In view of the amendment to the Code, a witness is entitled to file ... , the present revision is filed.15. Learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn attention of the Court to Order XIII Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure governing the admissibility of evidence, which reads as under:Order XIII - Production, impounding and Return of documents:Rule 4 Endorsement on documents admitted in evidence ...

Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //