SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2000 Supreme(Pat) 1318

R.N.PRASAD
Bageshwari Devi – Appellant
Versus
Sheo Kumar Mishra – Respondent


Judgment

1. This application in revision has been filed against the order dated 16.9.2000 passed in T.S.No. 52/96 whereby the court has held that the suit has abated in view of the provision of Section 4(1)(c) of the Consolidation of Holdings and Prevention of Fragmentation Act (hereinafter referred to as the Consolidation Act). The office has raised objection about maintainability of the Civil Revision application on the basis of the order dated 26.11.1996 passed in Civil Revision No. 1390/90 whereby it has been held that Civil Revision is not maintainable.

2. The concept of abatement has come from Civil Law. In case of death of the parties in a proceeding either in the trial court, appeal or revision the heirs of deceased is required to be substituted and if not substituted such proceeding abates. In case of appeal or revision it has no effect on the judgment, decree and order against which appeal or revision is preferred. In other words, the judgment, decree or order under appeal or revision would become final. In the case of consolidation proceeding as soon as the Notification u/s 3 of the Consolidation Act is made the proceeding before the Civil Court either in trial, appeal or




Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top