Search Results for "CPC amendment 1976"

456 result(s) found

Scroll Down To Discover

Found 456 result(s)

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

High Court of Karnataka Dismisses Appeal in Suit for Specific Performance and Injunction — Concurrent Findings of Fact Not Interfered With. Court holds that a second appeal under Section 100 CPC is not maintainable against concurrent findings of fact unless substantial question of law arises.

The appellant, Mr. Jagadish Poonja, filed a Regular First Appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, against the judgment and decre...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

High Court of Karnataka Allows Appeal Against Ex-Parte Decree in Suit for Recovery of Money — Sets Aside Order Rejecting Application Under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC. Failure to Serve Summons Properly and Lack of Knowledge of Proceedings Constitute Sufficient Cause for Setting Aside Ex-Parte Decree.

The appellant, Shri K. Raja, filed a Miscellaneous First Appeal under Order 43 Rule 1(d) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) against an order d...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Bombay High Court Addresses Readiness and Willingness Under Section 16(c) of Specific Relief Act, 1963 and Scope of Order XLI Rule 22 CPC in Second Appeal. Conditional Readiness to Perform Contract Held Not Sufficient; Respondent Cannot Challenge Adverse Finding Without Cross-Objection.

The case originated from a suit for specific performance of an agreement for sale dated 17 August 1973 concerning immovable property. The plaintiff, V...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

High Court of Karnataka Allows Appeal Against Ex-Parte Decree in Recovery Suit — Sets Aside Order Rejecting Application Under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC. Failure to Serve Summons Properly and Lack of Knowledge of Proceedings Constitute Sufficient Cause for Setting Aside Ex-Parte Decree.

The appellant, Shri K. Raja, filed a Miscellaneous First Appeal under Order 43 Rule 1(d) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) against an order d...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

High Court of Karnataka Quashes Stay of Execution Proceedings in Possession Suit — Order 21 Rule 29 CPC Cannot Be Invoked After Decree Is Passed. Execution Court Erred in Staying Execution Based on Subsequent Suit Filed by Judgment Debtor After Decree.

The petitioners (decree holders) obtained a decree for possession in O.S. No. 79/2003 (originally O.S. No. 3/1971) against the respondent (judgment de...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Bombay High Court Dismisses Petitions Challenging Consent Decree in Suit for Specific Performance — No Fraud or Collusion Found in Consent Terms Filed by Counsel. Consent decree upheld as valid and binding under Order XXIII Rule 3 CPC.

The petitioners, Dhanaji Kashinath Shendkar and others, filed writ petitions challenging a consent decree passed in a suit for specific performance. T...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

High Court of Karnataka Dismisses Second Appeal in Declaration and Possession Suit — Substantial Question of Law Not Pressed. Amendment to plaint seeking both declaration and recovery of possession renders the framed question of law infructuous.

The case involves a second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, filed by the appellant against the judgment and decree dated...