Civil Limitation - Judgment Search Results

Mahesh Centre and anr. Vs. People Charity Fund by Its Trustees

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 2007(4)KarLJ4344

arises out of judgment and decree dated 27-3-2002 in O.S. No. 5309/1990 passed by the XI Addl. City Civil Judge, Bangalore City dismissing the suit of plaintiff for specific performance for lease of schedule property.2. The appellants … in favour of the firm or proprietary concern?iii) Whether the defendants prove that the suit is barred by limitation?iv) Whether the defendants prove that there is no privity of contract with the plaintiffs?6. After remand, both the

Lachhman Singh (Deceased) Through Legal Representatives and ors. Vs. H ...

Court: Supreme Court of India

Reported in: 2008(3)AWC2635(SC); 2008(3)CTC541; JT2008(7)SC129; (2008)7MLJ481(SC); 2008(8)SCALE220; (2008)5SCC444; 2008(4)LH(SC)2392

the respondent for adduction of additional evidence, as envisaged under Order 41 Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure and submitted that the deed of mortgage which was registered in Village Pangota, Tehsil Taran Taran in … S.B. Sinha, J.1. Leave granted.2. What would be the period of limitation in a suit for redemption of mortgage in the factual matrix involved in the present case is the

Mithailal Dalsangar Singh and ors. Vs. Annabai Devram Kini and ors.

Court: Supreme Court of India

Reported in: AIR2003SC4244; (SCSuppl)2004(1)CHN1; 97(2004)CLT257(SC); [2003(4)JCR74(SC)]; JT2003(Suppl1)SC262; 2003(4)MhLj721; 2003MPLJ362(SC); 2003(7)SCALE610; (2003)10SCC691; 2004(1)U

the Division Bench is set aside. Instead the order dated 29.3.2001 passed by Learned Single Judge is restored. Civil - Limitation Act - Section 5, Schedule - Order 22, Rule 9(1) - Agreement to sell the suit

Tribhuban Parkash Nayyar Vs. the Union of India (Uoi)

Court: Supreme Court of India

Reported in: AIR1970SC540; (1969)3SCC99; [1970]2SCR732

and Ors. : [1955]1SCR520 , a case dealing with the power of review Under Order 47 Rule 1 Civil P.C., the language of which, according to the appellant's counsel, is completely identical with that of Rule 18.12. … be deemed to be or to have been made within time, if-(i) such application was not barred by limitation on the appointed day under the rules made under the principal Act and is filed within one month

Union of India and ors. Vs. Rai Bahadur Seth Shree Ram Durga Pershad

Court: Supreme Court of India

of India and sections 109 and 110 and Order 45, rules 2 and 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure, have prayed for a certificate of fitness to appeal to Supreme Court against the judgment and order … case and they merited decision by a larger Bench. Those questions were- (1)Whether in computing the period of limitation for a petition under Articles 132 and 133, the time spent in obtaining a certified copy of the

M.S. Susheelamma W/O Late M. Shanthappa, (Since Dead by Her L.Rs. M.S. ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 2009(1)KCCRSN20; 2009(4)AIRKarR1; AIR2009NOC2109

dealing with the provisions of the U.P. Consolidation of the Holdings Act, 1954 where the provision excluding the civil court's jurisdiction is even wider, has had occasion to observe: (SCR p. 342: SCC p. 538, para 5).but, … suit schedule property. The trial court had dismissed the suit of the plaintiffs as having been barred by limitation.2. The facts, which are not in dispute, are, as to the parties' relationship with one another, inasmuch as

Smt. Premo Devi and ors. Vs. Joint Director of Consolidation and anr.

Court: Allahabad

Reported in: 2003(3)AWC1780

of Tirkha and he remained untraceable for more than 9 years and, therefore, on the belief of his civil death, name of the legal heir was rightly ordered to be mutated. It is further argued that on … No. 2. In support of the submission that if the appeal has been dismissed on the ground of limitation the revision cannot be allowed on merits reliance has been placed on decision given in case of Tirath

Nabbu Khan Vs. Iiird Additional District Judge, Pilibhit and Others

Court: Allahabad

Reported in: 2000(4)AWC2667; 2000AIHC(All)4470

that the Impugned order arose out of a proceedings under Order XXI, Rule 97 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which was otherwise appealable and no revision lies, and, therefore, the case was remitted to the Court … in the execution of the decree. In the said order, the learned Judge had pointed out that the limitation for making an application under Order XXI, Rule 97 is 30 days from the date of resistance. Therefore,

Jatav Panchayat Committee, Etawah and Another Vs. Viith Additional Dis ...

Court: Allahabad

Reported in: 2000(2)AWC1162

Seth, J.1. One Karan Singh had filed Original Suit No. 157 of 1986 in the court of learned civil Judge (Junior Division), Etawah. The said Karan Singh died on 1st December,1995. One Ashok Bhaskar had filed an … Code, in such cases abatement sets in on the expiry of 90 days, namely, after the expiry of limitation for substitution, which is prescribed under Article 120 of the Limitation Act as 90 days. Whereas, in case

Kakatiya Finance, Nalgonda Vs. Nalamala Lingaiah

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 1998(4)ALD297; 1998(4)ALT251

a question of law and it involves no question of jurisdiction to bring the case within Section 115, Civil Procedure Code. As seen earlier in this case the executing Court and the appellate Court had not construed … the ground that the decree should be set aside as the claim of the petitioner is barred by limitation.3. The learned Counsel for the respondent submits that the sole ground set up before the executing Court was