SURESH CHANDRA NANHORYA Vs. RAJENDRA RAJAK
LAWS(SC)-2006-9-28
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (FROM: MADHYA PRADESH)
Decided on September 14,2006

SURESH CHANDRA NANHORYA Appellant
VERSUS
RAJENDRA RAJAK Respondents


Cited Judgements :-

JAIPUR DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY VS. BAJI RAM [LAWS(RAJ)-2012-5-129] [REFERRED TO]
INDIAN BANK THROUGH CMD VS. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR CUM APPELLATE AUTHORITY, INDIAN BANK [LAWS(PAT)-2016-10-151] [REFERRED TO]
A N PUNIWALA VS. BANK OF INDIA [LAWS(GJH)-2007-4-26] [RELIED ON]
BISWANATH SETHI VS. STATE OF ODISHA AND ORS. [LAWS(ORI)-2021-1-24] [REFERRED TO]
FLEMINGO DFS PRIVATE LIMITED VS. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS [LAWS(APH)-2010-12-100] [REFERRED TO]
IMPEX CORPORATION VS. ELENJIKAL AQUAMARINE EXPORTS LTD [LAWS(KER)-2007-10-5] [REFERRED TO]
PATEL GOVINDBHAI MANILAL VS. DENA BANK [LAWS(GJH)-2022-6-1700] [REFERRED TO]
DENONG TAMUK VS. STATE OF ARUNACHAL PRADESH [LAWS(GAU)-2016-5-130] [REFERRED]
M/S. CO-OPERATIVE CO. LTD. VS. STATE OF U.P. [LAWS(ALL)-2022-1-3] [REFERRED TO]
SHEELA VS. SHRI VIJAY PAL SINGH [LAWS(UTN)-2010-5-32] [REFERRED TO]
BHIKHABHAI RASULBHAI BHOKARIYA VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-2006-12-41] [REFERRED TO]
SENGUNTHAR CHARITABLE TRUST REP BY ITS SECRETARY VS. KARUR VYSYA BANK TIRUCHENGODE BRANCH SANGAGIRI ROAD [LAWS(MAD)-2012-7-224] [REFERRED TO]
RAJESH MAHESHCHANDRA JARIWALA VS. INSURANCE REGULATORY & DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY AND ORS. [LAWS(GJH)-2015-3-14] [REFERRED TO]
SENGUNTHAR CHARITABLE TRUST VS. R MANICKAM [LAWS(MAD)-2012-7-356] [REFERRED TO]
P.R. Dhananjaya, Smt. Lakshmidevamma and Smt. Narasamma VS. Sri. H. Nagaraju, Smt. Lakshmamma and Sri. H. Narasimhamurthy [LAWS(KAR)-2013-9-191] [REFERRED TO]
PRAFULLA CHANDRA NAIK VS. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR BANK OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(ORI)-2019-7-78] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

- (1.)Leave granted.
(2.)Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment and order dated 7.2.2003 in Civil Revision No.144/2003 and the order dated 23.4.2004 in (Review Application) Misc. Civil No. 574/2004, passed by a learned Single Judge of Madhya Pradesh High Court at Jabalpur.
(3.)Though various points were urged in support of the appeal, the primary stand was that Civil Revision filed under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (in short the 'CPC') was allowed by the learned Single Judge even without issuing notice to the appellant. On knowing the order passed by learned Single Judge in the Civil Revision, the review application was filed specifically pointing out that no notice had been issued before disposal of the Civil Revision. The High Court rejected the same as noted above.
;


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