MAHANTH RAM DAS Vs. GANGA DAS
LAWS(SC)-1961-2-43
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (FROM: PATNA)
Decided on February 07,1961

MAHANTH RAM DAS Appellant
VERSUS
GANGA DAS Respondents


Cited Judgements :-

GANGES RIVER TRANSPORT VS. RELIANCE JUTE AND INDUSTRIES LTD [LAWS(CAL)-1982-1-5] [REFERRED TO]
M/S. BHARAT PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD VS. KHATANAND @ K. ANAND SARAF [LAWS(CHH)-2008-2-40] [REFERRED TO]
ALIM MURTAZA KOTHAWALA VS. KASAM SHAIKH SARDAR PINJARI [LAWS(BOM)-2003-8-67] [REFERRED TO]
PIONEER ENGINEERING CO VS. D H MACHINE TOOLS [LAWS(DLH)-1985-5-11] [REFERRED 17]
K SUDHAKAR REDDY VS. IND BANK HOUSING LIMITED [LAWS(APH)-2007-8-64] [REFERRED TO]
KHAN GHULAM RASOOL VS. CH BASHIR AHMAD [LAWS(J&K)-1975-7-2] [REFERRED TO]
A GURUNATHAN ALIAS SIVAJI VS. J MUTHULAKSHMI [LAWS(MAD)-2008-12-153] [REFERRED TO]
S RAVINDRA REDDY VS. K VEERABHADRACHARI [LAWS(MAD)-1998-10-103] [REFERRED TO]
K NATARAJAN VS. P K RAJASEKARAN [LAWS(MAD)-2003-4-175] [REFERRED TO]
THAMBIKUNJU ELYAS VS. ABDUL RAZAK SHUKOOR [LAWS(KER)-1998-8-53] [REFERRED TO]
M MOHAN VS. P G SHANKARAMOORTHY [LAWS(MAD)-1985-3-25] [REFERRED TO]
RAMAR MUTHURAJA VS. M SAIT [LAWS(MAD)-1986-11-8] [REFERRED TO]
WASUDEO BAKARAM KURVE VS. RAMDAYAL PUNA BISNE [LAWS(BOM)-1970-12-5] [REFERRED TO]
YESHWANT SHRIPATI PATIL VS. BALKRISHNA SAKHARAM PATIL [LAWS(BOM)-1987-2-24] [REFERRED TO]
DINESHWAR PRASAD VS. PARMESHWAR PRASAD [LAWS(PAT)-1988-2-5] [REFERRED TO]
BUTA SINGH SHANKAR SINGH VS. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH [LAWS(MPH)-1961-12-9] [REFERRED TO]
BOKARO AND RAMGUR LTD VS. STATE OF BIHAR [LAWS(CAL)-1964-3-5] [REFERRED TO]
LADULAL VS. KESHAVDAS [LAWS(RAJ)-1968-7-22] [REFERRED TO]
GULAM ABBAS VS. SHRI KALYAN FINANCE CO AJMER [LAWS(RAJ)-1975-1-23] [REFERRED TO]
MRS. FARKHONDEH KHANUM VS. THE BOARD OF WAKFS, WEST BENGAL & ANR. [LAWS(CAL)-2016-11-4] [REFERRED TO]
UNION OF INDIA VS. D.R.K.REDDY [LAWS(APH)-2024-9-24] [REFERRED TO]
DEBABRATA MAITI VS. MALLABHUM GRAMIN BANK [LAWS(CAL)-2008-4-89] [REFERRED TO]
ASHA SHARMA VS. SANIMIYA VANIJIYA P. LTD [LAWS(DLH)-2009-9-202] [REFERRED TO]
POONAM BHANOT VS. VIRENDER SHARMA [LAWS(DLH)-2022-7-187] [REFERRED TO]
VED PRAKASH VS. SHAKUNTALA DEVI [LAWS(HPH)-1997-4-24] [REFERRED TO]
BINDRU VS. KIKRU [LAWS(J&K)-1987-5-1] [RELIED ON]
KEC INTERNATIONAL LIMITED VS. KAMANI EMPLOYEES UNION [LAWS(BOM)-1999-8-56] [REFERRED TO]
VATSALA SHANKAR BANSOLE VS. SAMBHAJI NANASAHEB KHANDARE [LAWS(BOM)-2002-6-7] [REFERRED TO]
HANUMANTHAPPA VS. LAKSHMAMMA [LAWS(KAR)-2000-12-25] [REFERRED TO]
MANIPAL INDUSTRIES LIMITED VS. FERTILISER CORPORATION OF INDIA LIMITED [LAWS(KAR)-1995-3-37] [REFERRED TO]
DEVENDRA KUMAR BHAGAWATILAL DUBEY VS. STATE OF M P [LAWS(MPH)-1998-1-46] [REFERRED TO]
GULAB SINGH VS. DHANRAJ [LAWS(RAJ)-1982-9-11] [REFERRED TO]
LACHHMAN SINGH VS. BOHLI [LAWS(P&H)-1993-8-91] [REFERRED TO]
UCO BANK VS. LALAN SHARAN VERMA [LAWS(PAT)-2009-4-162] [REFERRED TO]
MOHAN RAM VS. SARDAR BUDH SINGH [LAWS(PAT)-1966-1-12] [REFERRED TO]
MARKETING AND ADVERTISING ASSOCIATES PVT LTD VS. TELERAD PRIVATE LTD [LAWS(BOM)-1968-9-7] [REFERRED TO]
TARAPADA SARKAR VS. NEPAL GAZI [LAWS(CAL)-1963-5-11] [REFERRED TO]
NEW BANGASREE BASTRALAYA AND ANOTHER VS. RAMANLAL PHURMA KARTA [LAWS(CAL)-1976-5-33] [REFERRED TO]
NATIONAL CEMENT, MINES AND INDUSTRIES LTD. VS. SREE SREE BAIDYANATH JEW [LAWS(CAL)-1968-7-28] [REFERRED TO]
SURINDER SINGH VS. CENTRAL GOVERNMENT [LAWS(SC)-1986-9-87] [RELIED ON]
DARSHAN SINGH VS. KEWAL KRISHAN [LAWS(RAJ)-2002-8-20] [REFERRED TO]
UNION OF INDIA VS. SOHAN LAL AND OTHERS [LAWS(P&H)-1969-1-21] [REFERRED TO]
DORAISWAMI CHETTIAR VS. GOVINDASWAMI CHETTIAR [LAWS(MAD)-1962-7-35] [REFERRED TO]
PERIASAMY VS. PONNAPPA NADIR [LAWS(MAD)-2011-6-373] [REFERRED TO]
NIKHIL KUMAR SAHA VS. HEDAYAT ALI MOLLA [LAWS(CAL)-1982-4-17] [REFERRED TO]
TAPAN KUMAR CHATTERJEE VS. KALYANI DEBI [LAWS(CAL)-1984-9-10] [REFERRED TO]
MANGALA GHOSH VS. RABINDRA NATH [LAWS(CAL)-1986-4-32] [REFERRED TO]
ANADI NATH VS. SUDANGSHU [LAWS(CAL)-1986-5-6] [REFERRED TO]
SUSHILA DEVI JAIN VS. MOHAMMAD SHAFI [LAWS(ALL)-1982-2-25] [REFERRED TO]
MOHAN LAL VS. LADLI PRASAD [LAWS(ALL)-1971-1-2] [REFERRED TO]
NARESHCHANDRA CHINUBHAI PATEL VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-1974-11-8] [CASES REFERRED]
NATUBHAI SHIVABHAI CHAVDA VS. DHIRAJLAL MADHAVDAS BHARTI [LAWS(GJH)-1991-8-44] [REFERRED TO]
KIRPA RAM VS. LACHHMAN [LAWS(HPH)-1993-7-17] [REFERRED TO]
ARJUNAKUTTAN VS. MOM DEVARAJAN [LAWS(KER)-1987-10-25] [REFERRED TO]
HARI KRISHNAN DIED VS. HAJI FATHIMA BEEVI [LAWS(MAD)-1984-4-15] [REFERRED TO]
DHANNA VS. SIRI PARKASH AND ORS. [LAWS(P&H)-1962-5-25] [REFERRED TO]
MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, FARIDABAD VS. SURESH [LAWS(P&H)-2007-1-85] [REFERRED TO]
DINESH VS. LAL SINGH [LAWS(P&H)-2007-3-5] [REFERRED TO]
EX. HC RAKESH KUMAR VS. STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS [LAWS(P&H)-2015-7-406] [REFERRED TO]
CT RAMASAMY VS. SP KAVERI ACHI [LAWS(MAD)-2002-10-51] [REFERRED TO]
NARASINGHA CHARAN SWAIN VS. JAIRAM JENA [LAWS(ORI)-1981-11-11] [REFERRED TO]
RAJNI SHAHI VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(PAT)-2004-1-92] [REFERRED TO]
G. RITE AND CO. VS. CHANDRAKANT HARILAL SHAH [LAWS(BOM)-1969-9-19] [REFERRED TO]
SONI BAI VS. STATE [LAWS(RAJ)-1965-10-10] [REFERRED TO]
CORPORATION OF CALCUTTA VS. BALKRISHNA RAJGHORIA [LAWS(CAL)-1977-1-41] [REFERRED]
DEEPCHAND MINI VS. TICAMCHAND MINI [LAWS(CAL)-1973-6-9] [REFERRED TO]
PARMA NAND ARYA VS. KAMLA SETHI [LAWS(DLH)-1974-9-11] [CITED]
RAJ NATH VS. VIJAY NATH [LAWS(DLH)-1972-9-10] [REFERRED]
DHARMENDRA MISHRA VS. U. P. STATE PUBLIC SERVICES TRIBUNAL [LAWS(ALL)-2024-1-109] [REFERRED TO]
RAMJEET PRASAD VS. D J SIDDHARTH NAGAR [LAWS(ALL)-1996-2-48] [REFERRED TO]
GUJARAT ELECTRICITY BOARD VS. SHANKARBHAI MOTIBHAI PRAJAPATI [LAWS(GJH)-2000-8-55] [REFERRED]
HBR SALES PVT LTD VS. STATE [LAWS(CAL)-2011-1-148] [REFERRED TO]
HARADHAN MANNA VS. BIDHUBALA BHUNIYA [LAWS(CAL)-1989-2-36] [REFERRED TO]
KEC INTERNATIONAL LTD VS. KAMANI EMPLOYEES UNION [LAWS(BOM)-1999-8-108] [REFERRED TO]
GOBARDHAN SINGH VS. BARSATI [LAWS(ALL)-1971-12-5] [REFERRED TO]
MAHARASHTRA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD VS. NIRANJAN ALLOYS STEELS PVT LTD [LAWS(BOM)-2006-12-23] [REFERRED TO]
HARI VS. MAHADU KERBA TEKALE (D) BY L. RS. [LAWS(BOM)-2006-7-246] [REFERRED TO]
V O DEVASSY VS. PERIYAR CREDITS [LAWS(KER)-1994-3-27] [REFERRED TO]
OM PRAKASH VS. MATA VAISHNO DEVI SHRINE BOARD [LAWS(J&K)-2009-4-6] [REFERRED TO]
MANGU VS. VIIITH ADDL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE GHAZIABAD [LAWS(ALL)-2005-7-152] [REFERRED TO]
SAKKEER HUSSAIN VS. SAINABHA V.P. AND ORS. [LAWS(KER)-2018-6-658] [REFERRED TO]
POOTHADI GRAMA PANCHAYATH VS. S.C.SUKUMARAN [LAWS(KER)-2019-11-263] [REFERRED TO]
S FLORANCE KASTURBAI ALIAS KASTURI SAKKAIN VS. FATIMA COLLEGE MADURAI [LAWS(MAD)-1985-2-26] [REFERRED TO]
KUMARASAMY VS. PALANIYAMMAL [LAWS(MAD)-2014-11-224] [REFERRED TO]
UNION OF INDIA VS. SHARVAN KUMAR [LAWS(SC)-2022-7-140] [REFERRED TO]
PAKKIAMMAL VS. ANAIAPPAN [LAWS(MAD)-2000-7-64] [REFERRED TO]
GOWRI AMMAL VS. MURUGAN [LAWS(MAD)-2006-4-45] [REFERRED TO]
GOWRI AMMAL VS. MURUGAN [LAWS(MAD)-2006-4-45] [REFERRED TO]
GOLAPRAI JAIN VS. GOURANGA MEHER [LAWS(ORI)-1969-4-5] [REFERRED TO]
DIJABAR VS. SULABHA [LAWS(ORI)-1985-7-9] [FOLLOWED ON]
DURGA MHOAN HOSHI VS. INTERNATIONAL METAL INDUSTRIES [LAWS(BOM)-1983-9-8] [REFERRED TO]
SANG SINGH VS. MUNICIPAL BOARD POKARAN [LAWS(RAJ)-1980-8-1] [REFERRED TO]
ABDUL GAFFAR VS. S T A T [LAWS(RAJ)-1983-10-15] [REFERRED TO]
SHIVSHANKAR DAYAL VS. SHANTI DEVI [LAWS(RAJ)-1971-12-3] [REFERRED TO]
D V PAUL VS. MANISHA LALWANI [LAWS(SC)-2010-8-23] [REFERRED TO]
RABINDRA NATH HAZRA VS. MANGALA BALA GHOSH [LAWS(CAL)-1989-6-61] [REFERRED TO]
PRIME PROMOTORS PRIVATE LIMITED VS. AROOP KUMAR CHATTERJEE [LAWS(CAL)-1998-12-7] [REFERRED]
LAW CLERKS ASSO VS. HON BLE CHIEF JUSTICE [LAWS(CAL)-2008-5-90] [REFERRED TO]
RATAN SAHA VS. INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD [LAWS(CAL)-2012-5-22] [REFERRED TO]
UMA SHANKER VS. ANGOORI DEVI [LAWS(ALL)-1987-3-72] [REFERRED TO]
DELHI CLOTH AND GENERAL MILLS COMPANY LIMITED VS. HEM CHAND [LAWS(DLH)-1972-5-24] [REFERRED]
MALTEX MALSTERS PRIVATE LIMITED VS. ALLIED ENGINEERS [LAWS(DLH)-1975-3-22] [REFFERED]
ESSO STANDARD EASTERN INC COMPANY VS. WEARWELL CYCLE COMPANY [LAWS(DLH)-1976-10-1] [REFERRED]
GIRIDHARI AUTO FINANCE PRIVATE LIMITED KHAMMAM VS. GUDLA HARI BABU [LAWS(APH)-2003-10-77] [REFERRED TO]
JAMINI MOHAN ROY VS. TRIPURA GRAMIN BANK [LAWS(GAU)-1998-2-33] [REFERRED TO]
HINDUSTAN PAPER CORPORATION LTD VS. SAIKIA ALIAS ASSOCIATES [LAWS(GAU)-2008-7-4] [REFERRED TO]
BLIND RELIEF ASSOCIATION VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-1999-11-17] [REFERRED TO]
HARI RAMJI VS. MAHADU KERBA TEKALE [LAWS(BOM)-2006-6-99] [REFERRED TO]
SOPANA RAMBHAU MUSALE VS. BABAN BHAGWANTA KHADE [LAWS(BOM)-2006-7-118] [REFERRED TO]
USHA SALES LIMITED VS. ARUNA GUPTA [LAWS(DLH)-1987-12-30] [REFERRED 2.]
KULDIP CHAND VS. GIAN CHAND [LAWS(HPH)-1996-7-15] [REFERRED TO]
SS RAIL WORKS PVT. LTD. VS. IRCON INTERNATIONAL PVT. LTD. [LAWS(DLH)-2024-2-58] [REFERRED TO]
RAM LAL GUPTA VS. CIVIL JADGE BANDA [LAWS(ALL)-2006-10-190] [REFERRED TO]
KUNHI PATHU VS. AYSHU [LAWS(KER)-1972-7-7] [REFERRED TO]
JANAKI AMMA VS. KRISHNAN [LAWS(KER)-1978-1-15] [REFERRED TO]
KARTHIAYANI AMMA VS. KESAVAN [LAWS(KER)-1963-1-27] [REFERRED TO]
D RAJU VS. N RAMALINGAM [LAWS(MAD)-2001-2-161] [REFERRED TO]
VIJAYAN VS. VIVEK [LAWS(KER)-2002-9-93] [REFERRED TO]
SHRAVAN KUMAR PATEL VS. 0 MOHANLAL HARGOVINDDAS [LAWS(MPH)-2024-5-21] [REFERRED TO]
CHINNAMARKATHIAN ALIAS MUTHU GOUNDER CHINNA GOUNDER RAJA GOUNDER VS. AYYAVOO ALIAS PERIANA GOUNDER:AYYAVOO ALIAS PERIANA GOUNDER:AYYAVOO ALIAS PERIANA GOUNDER [LAWS(SC)-1981-12-6] [RELIED ON]
VIRA PROPERTIES (MADRAS) PVT LIMITED VS. BABA ENTERPRISES [LAWS(MAD)-2012-3-112] [REFERRED TO]
NARAYAN GANPAT NAVBUDHA VS. SK. SUBHAN SHER MOHAMMAD AND ANOTHER [LAWS(BOM)-1985-9-63] [REFERRED TO]
BAJRANG RAI VS. ISMAIL MIAN [LAWS(PAT)-1977-5-8] [REFERRED TO]
BROJOMOHAN SABUI VS. BINAPANI SUR [LAWS(CAL)-1966-1-9] [REFERRED TO]
RAKESH WADHAWAN VS. JAGDAMBA INDUSTRIES CORPORATION [LAWS(SC)-2002-4-142] [REFERRED]
SUNITY CHANDRA VS. NIL RATAN [LAWS(CAL)-1985-3-19] [REFERRED TO]
NATIONAL BANK LTD VS. DULAL KANTI CHOWDHURY [LAWS(CAL)-2010-4-67] [REFERRED TO]
J.L. GUGNANI VS. KRISHNA ESTATE [LAWS(DLH)-2011-7-486] [REFERRED TO]
S G ESTATES AND PROPERTIES LIMITED VS. TEHRI STEELS LIMITED [LAWS(ALL)-1997-3-167] [REFERRED TO]
KALLYANI AMMA VS. KUNHIKRISHNAN [LAWS(KER)-1971-3-10] [REFERRED TO]
S.MAHALINGA BHATTA VS. ASSANARE BEARY [LAWS(KER)-1972-8-20] [REFERRED TO]
PHIPSON AND COMPANY LIMITED VS. GAYCO PRIVATE LIMITED [LAWS(DLH)-1976-1-5] [REFERRED 2.]
AHMED M VS. VAISHALLI [LAWS(KAR)-1986-12-5] [DISTINGUISHED]
VARKEY VS. HARIHARAN NAIR [LAWS(KER)-1991-4-17] [REFERRED TO]
CHANDRAMMA VS. RAFEEQ AHMED [LAWS(KAR)-2010-9-23] [REFERREDD TO]
CHANDRAMMA VS. RAFEEQ AHMED [LAWS(KAR)-2010-9-42] [REFERRED TO]
BHOOPALAM R RAMASWAMY SHETTY AND SONS VS. VYSYA BANK LTD [LAWS(KAR)-1991-10-34] [FOLLOWED ON]
N R NAINAR MOHAMED VS. KHAJA MOHIDEEN [LAWS(MAD)-1990-1-17] [REFERRED TO]
R S SIVASWAMI VS. S SOUNDRAMMAL [LAWS(MAD)-2008-7-55] [REFERRED TO]
MACQUARIE BANK LIMITED VS. SHILPI CABLE TECHNOLOGIES LTD. [LAWS(SC)-2017-12-38] [REFERRED TO]
RAM RAJI @ RANA JI LAL AND ANR. VS. SMT. MAYA DEVI AND ORS. [LAWS(P&H)-2005-3-148] [REFERRED TO]
BIDYADHAR MOHAPATRA VS. DHOBA MAHARANA [LAWS(ORI)-1987-2-17] [REFERRED TO]
U CO BANK COLLEGE SQUARE VS. KHETRAMANI MOHANTY [LAWS(ORI)-2001-11-7] [REFERRED TO]
C T RAMASAMY VS. S P KAVERI ACHI [LAWS(MAD)-2002-10-33] [REFERRED TO]
Dewan Chandra Gin and others VS. IInd Addl.District Judge and others [LAWS(UTN)-2010-9-116] [REFERRED TO]
HARCHARAN SINGH VS. PUSHPA DEVI AND ORS. [LAWS(P&H)-2015-3-188] [REFERRED TO]
SUCHA SINGH VS. NAND LAL [LAWS(P&H)-2015-4-271] [REFERRED TO]
INDIAN STATISTICAL INSTITUTE VS. ASSOCIATED BUILDERS [LAWS(SC)-1977-12-18] [FOLLOWED]
MANWANI INDUSTRIES LTD VS. DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL [LAWS(MPH)-2001-1-39] [REFERRED TO]
BISUN PRASAD MISHRA VS. KAMLA KANT JHA [LAWS(PAT)-1972-2-7] [REFERRED TO]
JHAURI PASWAN VS. LOBHI PASWAN [LAWS(PAT)-1978-1-28] [REFERRED TO]
SIBAN MAHTO VS. RAMDHANI SINGH [LAWS(PAT)-1972-1-3] [REFERRED TO]
SHANKAR SADU WANJHE VS. PARWATIBAI RAMCHANDRA DONGRE [LAWS(BOM)-1975-10-2] [REFERRED TO]
SAHJADI VS. MOHD. YUSUF KHAN [LAWS(ALL)-2023-1-86] [REFERRED TO]
SMT. JALILUN NISHAN VS. SARDAR ARJUN SINGH [LAWS(ALL)-1986-9-81] [REFERRED TO]
JAPPREET K. KITTY VS. CHEIL COMMUNICATIONS INDIA PVT. LTD. AND ORS. [LAWS(DLH)-2010-4-199] [REFERRED TO]
R P KAPUR VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(DLH)-1974-3-3] [REFERRED TO]
HINDUSTAN PETROLEUM CORPORATION LIMITED VS. WEARWELL CYCLES CO INDIA LIMITED [LAWS(DLH)-1976-10-5] [REFERRED]
GANDEAY SHRAVAN KUMAR VS. D SRINIVASULU [LAWS(APH)-2003-7-114] [REFERRED TO]
H C UPADHYA VS. A R RUSTOM FRAM [LAWS(APH)-2005-12-90] [REFERRED TO]
NALLURI SINGAIAH VS. BANDLAPATI KISHORE BABU [LAWS(APH)-2006-4-51] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF U P VS. DHARAM SINGH MAHRA [LAWS(ALL)-1982-11-36] [REFERRED TO]
NEW BANK OF INDIA VS. PUSHPA AHUJA [LAWS(DLH)-1997-1-22] [REFERRED]
JETHU VS. BHUTESHWARI [LAWS(HPH)-1988-12-5] [REFERRED TO]
KADAMKOTHU VALAPPIL SREEDHARAN VS. KEEREERAKATH MUHAMMED KUNHI [LAWS(KER)-1977-11-25] [REFERRED TO]
SREEDHARAN VS. MOHAMMED KUNHI [LAWS(KER)-1977-11-39] [REFERRED TO]
R MUTHUKRISHNAN VS. PAPPATHI @ ANGAMMAL; SHANMUGASUNDARAM; MANIKANDAN; THENMOZHI [LAWS(MAD)-2008-12-515] [REFERRED]
CHANDRA PAPER INDUSTRIES VS. DEPUTY COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER AND ANR. [LAWS(MAD)-2009-3-235] [REFERRED TO]
GOODS OF LATE RAVINDER KUMAR VS. STATE [LAWS(ALL)-2003-7-194] [REFERRED TO]
K. SARASWATHI (ALIAS) K. KALPANA VS. P.S.S. SOMASUNDARAM CHETTIAR [LAWS(MAD)-1976-11-47] [REFERRED TO]
Berar Regular Motor Service Union VS. R. T. A. Bhopal [LAWS(MPH)-1963-1-17] [REFERRED TO]
KAMALUDDIN VS. CHHOTELAL [LAWS(MPH)-1985-12-23] [REFERRED TO]
ASSISTANT MANAGER, INDIAN OVERSEAS BANK, CHENNAI VS. MANAGING DIRECTOR, M/S GLOBAL POWERTECH EQUIPMENT PVT LTD , CHENNAI AND OTHERS [LAWS(MAD)-2017-12-184] [REFERRED TO]
BALBIR SINGH VS. BALDEV SINGH [LAWS(SC)-2025-1-72] [REFERRED TO]
JAI SINGH VS. PURAN SINGH [LAWS(P&H)-1990-5-55] [REFERRED TO]
RAMKUMAR JHUNJHUNWALLA AND ORS VS. CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA AND ANOTHER [LAWS(ORI)-1992-12-27] [REFERRED]
JOHRI SINGH VS. SUKH PAL SINGH [LAWS(SC)-1989-9-14] [RELIED ON]
ZAIBUNNISSA BI VS. RAM KISHORE [LAWS(MAD)-1999-9-118] [REFERRED TO]
KANDURI SAHU VS. NIDHI SAHU [LAWS(ORI)-1965-4-9] [REFERRED TO]
LALA RAM VS. BASTI MAL [LAWS(RAJ)-2000-7-60] [REFERRED TO]
HUKMA VS. MANGA [LAWS(P&H)-2002-2-13] [REFERRED TO]
LAKSHMI BALA CHANAK VS. BROJENDRA NATH PAIN [LAWS(CAL)-1970-11-5] [REFERRED TO]
HINDURAO ANNASAHEB PATIL VS. YESHWANT LAXMAN YADAV [LAWS(BOM)-1982-6-3] [REFERRED TO]
MUNI LAL VS. DAKSHIN HARYANA BIJLI VITRAN NIGAM LTD [LAWS(P&H)-2020-2-435] [REFERRED TO]
DULHIN JIBACHLI KUER VS. SITARAM SHARMA [LAWS(PAT)-1983-4-13] [REFERRED TO]
SHETHIA MINING AND MANUFACTURING CORPORATION LTD VS. KHAS DHARMABAND COLLIERY COMPANY PVT LTD [LAWS(CAL)-1982-4-20] [REFERRED TO]
DEBI PROSAD TRIVEDI VS. DEB KUMAR SINGHI [LAWS(CAL)-1981-6-10] [REFERRED TO]
STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA LTD VS. MACKINNON MACKENZIE AND CO LTD [LAWS(CAL)-2007-4-53] [REFERRED TO]
MADHU MOHAN VS. MARGADARSI CHIT FUND PRIVATE LIMITED HYDERABAD [LAWS(APH)-1997-10-56] [REFERRED TO]
M A MUKHEED VS. C PANDURANGAM [LAWS(APH)-2005-4-60] [REFERRED TO]
PATCHA MAHENDRA VS. KODURU PENCHALAIAH [LAWS(APH)-2005-4-80] [REFERRED TO]
UNION OF INDIA VS. ROSHAN LAL [LAWS(DLH)-1967-9-3] [REFERRED]
BICHITRA KUMAR PAUL AND ORS. VS. STATE OF TRIPURA AND ORS. [LAWS(GAU)-1994-7-18] [REFERRED TO]
LIBERTY FOOTWEAR COMPANY VS. FORCE FOOTWEAR COMPANY [LAWS(DLH)-2009-9-170] [REFERRED TO]
RAMANATH MISHRA VS. GANESWAR MISHRA [LAWS(ORI)-1985-7-8] [REFERRED TO]
CT Ramasamy VS. SP Kaveri Achi [LAWS(MAD)-2002-10-6] [REFERRED TO]
UNION OF INDIA VS. GODREJ AGROVET LIMITED [LAWS(J&K)-2019-8-2] [REFERRED TO]
SURAJKUND TEMPLE IDOL VS. SHRI HARI KISHAN ETC. [LAWS(HPH)-1973-12-7] [REFERRED TO]
BHORUKA ALUMINIUM LIMITED MYSORE VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(KAR)-1993-2-26] [FOLLOWED ON]
TIKAMCHAND SHARMA VS. RAMPAL [LAWS(RAJ)-1964-3-21] [REFERRED TO]
NATTHUSINGH HIMANCHALSINGH VS. SURATSINGH MATHURA PRASAD [LAWS(MPH)-1979-9-33] [REFERRED TO]
MUNIAMMAL VS. SAKKUBAI [LAWS(MAD)-1987-9-3] [REFERRED TO]
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX JULLUNDUR VS. AJANTAELECTRICALS PUNJAB [LAWS(SC)-1995-5-11] [RELIED ON]
RAKESH KUMAR VS. STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS. [LAWS(P&H)-2015-7-140] [REFERRED TO]
MARKETING AND ADVERTISING ASSOCIATES PVT LTD VS. TELERAD PRIVATE LTD [LAWS(BOM)-1969-1-4] [REFERRED TO]
BHUJANGRAO GANPATI VS. SHESHRAO RAJARAM [LAWS(BOM)-1973-4-12] [REFERRED TO]
B. C. SHAH AND CO. VS. T. P. KANANI [LAWS(BOM)-1974-8-24] [REFERRED TO]
BIBI BASHIRAN VS. LAL MOHAMMAD [LAWS(PAT)-1967-9-19] [REFERRED TO]
BCD TRAVEL INDIA PVT. LTD. VS. VENKATESH MULGI [LAWS(TLNG)-2019-8-15] [REFERRED TO]
SOHAN LAL ETC. VS. CENTRAL GOVERNMENT ETC. [LAWS(P&H)-1971-10-16] [REFERRED TO]
BHAVYA KUMARI AND ANR. VS. STATE OF BIHAR AND ANR. [LAWS(PAT)-2018-8-183] [REFERRED TO]
SALEM ADVOCATE BAR ASSOCIATION VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(SC)-2005-8-55] [REFERRED TO]
P K PALANISAMY VS. N ARUMUGHAM [LAWS(SC)-2009-7-24] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

M.HIDAYATULLAH - (1.)THE appellant who was plaintiff in a title suit in the Court of the Subordinate Judge II, Gaya, has appealed against the dismissal of his suit by the High Court at Patna, with a certificate from the Court. In the suit he had asked for a declaration that he was nominated Mahant of Moghal Juan Sangat by his Guru, Mahanth Gulab Das, by a registered deed dated 21/10/1944, and that he had thus the right to manage the Sangat and other off-shoots thereof. His suit was dismissed by the trial Judge on 31/05/1947. He then appealed to the High Court at Patna, and on 26/11/1951, the appeal was decided in his favour on condition that he paid court-fee on the amended relief of possession of properties involved in the suit, for which purpose the case was sent to the Court of First Instance for determining the value of the properties and for fixing the amount of court-fee to be paid. After the report from the Subordinate Judge was received, the case was placed for final orders before the High Court. V. Ramaswami, J. and C. P. Sinha, J. (as they then were) held that the valuation for the purpose of the suit was Rs. 12,178-4-0, and that ad volorem court-fee was payable on it. THEy, therefore, made a direction as follows:-
"THE High Court office will calculate the amount of court-fee payable on the valuation we have given and communicate to the counsel for plaintiff-appellant what is the amount of the court-fee he has got to pay both on the plaint and on the memorandum of appeal. We grant the plaintiff three months time to pay the court-fee for the Trial Court and also for the High Court. THE time will be computed from the date counsel for appellant is informed of the calculation by the Deputy Registrar of the High Court. If the amount is not paid within the time given, the appeal will stand dismissed. If the court-fee is paid within the time given, the appeal will be allowed with costs and the suit brought by the plaintiff will stand decreed with costs and the plaintiff will be granted a decree declaring... ...".

(2.)THE office of the High Court gave intimation on 8/04/1954, that the deficit court-fee payable was Rs. 1,987-8-0. THE time was to expire on 8/07/1954: but the appellant was not able to find the money, It appears that the appellant's advocate in the High Court asked the case to be mentioned before the Vacation Judge on 8/07/1954. so that a request for extension of time could be made. No Division Bench, however, was sitting on that date, and the appellant filed an application on 8/07/1954, requesting that he be allowed to pay Rs. 1,400 immediately, and the balance, within a month thereafter. This application was placed before a Division Bench consisting of Ramaswami and Ahmad, JJ., when the following order was passed:
"This application for extension of time must be dismissed. By virtue of the order of the Bench dated the 30/03/1954, the appeal has already stood dismissed as the amount was not paid within the time given.'' THE appellant then moved an application under S. 151, which was rejected by Imam, C. J. and Narayan, J., on 2/09/1954 THEy, however, felt that the proper remedy was review. THE appellant then filed another petition under S. 151, read with O. 47, R. 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, setting out the reasons why he was unable to find the money. He stated that he was seriously ill, and though he had attempted to raise a loan, he was unable to get sufficient money, as the grain market had slumped suddenly, and people were unable to advance money. He offered to pay the deficit court-fee within such further time as the High Court might fix.

This application for review was heard on 27/09/1955, by Ramaswami and Sinha, JJ. They first considered it from the viewpoint of Order 47, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, and held that the application did not fall within the Order. The argument of counsel that time could have been extended under S. 148 or S. 149 of the Code of Civil Procedure was also not accepted. The learned Judges held that these sections applied only to cases which were not finally disposed of, and that time under them could be extended only before the final order was actually made. The request to extend the time under the inherent powers of the Court was also rejected for the same reason. Ramaswami, J., concluded his order by saying:

"I have considerable sympathy towards the plaintiff petitioner who has placed himself in an unfortunate position, but we must be careful not to allow our sympathy to affect our judgment. To quote the language of Farwell, J. in another context 'sentiment is a dangerous will-o-the-wisp to take as a guide in the search for legal principles' (Latham v. R. Johnson and Nephew Ltd. 1913-1KE 398)."

In the result, the petition was dismissed, but without costs.

The appellant then moved the High Court for a certificate and the case was heard by K. K. Banerji and R. K. Chaudhary, JJ. Though the decree was one of affirmance, the learned Judges fortunately found it possible to grant a certificate, and the present appeal has been filed.

(3.)THE case is an unfortunate and unusual one. THE application for extension of time was made before the time fixed by the High Court for payment of deficit court-fee had actually rune out. That application appears not to have been considered at all, in view of the peremptory order which had been passed earlier by the Division Bench hearing the appeal, mainly because on the date of the hearing of the petition for extension of time, the period had expired. THE short question is whether the High Court, in the circumstances of the case, was powerless to enlarge the time, even though it had peremptorily fixed the period for payment. If the Court had considered the application and rejected it on merits, other considerations might have arisen; but the High Court in the order quoted, went by the letter of the original order under which time for payment had been fixed. S. 148 of the Code, in terms, allows extension of time, even if the original period fixed has expired, and S. 149 is equally liberal. As fortiori, those sections could be invoked by the applicant, when the time had not actually expired. That the application was filed in the vacation when a Division Bench was not sitting should have been considered in dealing with it even on 13/07/1954, when it was actually heard. THE order, though passed after the expiry of the time fixed by the original judgment, would have operated from 8/07/1954. How undesirable it is to fix time peremptorily for a future happening which leaves the Court powerless to deal with events that might arise in between , it is not necessary to decide in this appeal. THEse orders turn out, often enough to be inexpedient. Such procedural orders, though peremptory (conditional decrees apart) are, in essence, in terrorem, so that dilatory litigants might put themselves in order and avoid delay. THEy do not, however, completely estop a Court from taking note of events and circumstances which happen within the time fixed. For example, it cannot be said that, if the appellant had started with the full money ordered to be paid and came well in time but was set upon and robbed by thieves the day previous, he could not ask for extension of time, or that the Court was powerless to extend it. Such orders are not like the law of the Medes and the Persians. Cases are known in which Courts have moulded their practice to meet a situation such as this and to have restored a suit or proceeding, even though a final order has been passed. We need cite only one such case, and that is Lachmi Narain Marwari v. Balmakund Marwari, ILR 4 Pat 61 . No doubt, as observed by Lord Phillimore, we do not wish to place an impediment in the way of Courts in enforcing prompt obedience and avoidance of delay, any more than did the Privy Council. But we are of opinion that in this case the Court could have exercised its powers first on 13/07/1954, when the petition filed within time was before it, and again under the exercise of its inherent powers, when the two petitions under S. 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure were filed. If the High Court had felt disposed to take action on any of these occasions. Sections 148 and 149 would have clothed them with ample power to do justice to a litigant for whom it entertained considerable sympathy, but to whose aid it erroneously felt unable to come.
In our opinion, the High Court was in error on both the occasions. Time should have been extended on 13/07/1954, if sufficient cause was made out and again, when the petition were made for the exercise of the inherent powers. We, therefore, set aside the order of 13/07/1954, and the orders made subsequently. We need not send the case back for the trial of the petition made on 8/07/1954, because that would be only productive of more delay. None has appeared to contest the appeal in this Court. We have perused the application and the affidavit, and we are satisfied that sufficient cause had been made out for extension of time. We, accordingly , set aside the dismissal of the appeal and the suit, and grant the appellant two months' time from today for payment of the deficit court-fee. We only hope that, after the lesson which the appellant has learnt, he will not ask the Court perhaps vainly, to show him any more indulgence. There will be no order about costs in this Court, as the appeal was heard ex parte. Appeal allowed.



Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.