Karnataka Court December 1995 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
iranagouda Basanagouda Biradar Vs. Basanagouda Veeranagouda Biradar
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Dec-01-1995
Reported in: ILR1996KAR961; 1996(1)KarLJ318
ORDERKumar Rajaratnam, J. 1. The defendants in Suit O.S.No. 275/1989 have preferred this Revision Petition. The plaintiff filed a suit O.S.No. 275/1989 for permanent injunction. He also filed I.A.No.I for temporary injunction. Although the defendants were represented, they took various adjournments to file objections to I.A.No.I. On 5.3.1990 since the defendants failed to file objections, the learned Munsiff allowed I.A.No.I and granted temporary injunction. Against that the defendants had preferred an appeal M.A.No. 17/1990. The Appeal M.A.No. 17/1990 was also dismissed. Aggrieved by the dismissal of the appeal by the Appellate Court, the defendants have preferred this Revision Petition.2. The short ground on which the appeal was dismissed was that the defendants did not prefer a petition to vacate the interim injunction before the trial Court itself as required under Order 39 Rule 4 of C.P.C. Order 39 Rule 4 of C.P.C. states that any order of injunction may be discharged or varied or...
Abdul Khader Vs. Khajabi
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Dec-01-1995
Reported in: ILR1996KAR1552; 1996(1)KarLJ381
ORDERHari Nath Tilhari, J. 1. This Revision under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure arises from the judgment and order dated 9th August, 1995 dismissing the Revisionist's - appellant - judgment debtor's R.A. No. 101/1995, on the ground that the appeal preferred was misconceived and not maintainable as the appeal was against the Commissioner's Report.2. I have heard the learned Counsel for the Revisionist. Sri Goulay, learned Counsel for the Revisionist urged before me that the order impugned suffers from jurisdictional error; that the Court below erred in holding that the appeal was misconceived and not maintainable, thereby the Court below refused to exercise the jurisdiction invested. Further, Sri Goulay submitted that the appeal was maintainable under Order 43 Rule 1 (i), and it is an appeal from the order and not an appeal from the decree. Sri Goulay invited my attention to the provisions of Order 21 Rule 34 of the Code of Civil Procedure and Order 43 Rule 1 (i) read with ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›