HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK
Kantilal Parshottamdas Patel – Appellant
Versus
Patel Natvarlal Aditram – Respondent
ORDER :
1. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied by the impugned judgment and order dated 20.09.2003 passed by the learned Extra Assistant Judge, Kheda at Nadiad in Regular Civil Appeal No.11 of 1992, the appellant has preferred the present second appeal.
2. Heard learned counsel appearing for the respective parties.
3. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant has submitted that the First Appellate Court has not properly determined the substantial questions of law and, therefore, the appeal deserves to be allowed.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents has submitted that the Courts below have not committed any error of law and facts and the appeal being meritless deserves to be dismissed.
5. Considering the facts of the case and materials place on record, it appears that the First Appellate Court has not framed any substantial questions of law. I have also perused the impugned judgment and order passed by the Courts below. In my opinion, under Order 41 Rule 31 of the Civil Procedure Code (hereinafter be referred to as “the Code”), the First Appellate Court is bound to frame points for consideration, however, the same is not done. The provisions of Order 41 of the Civil Proce
B.V. Nagesh v. H.V. Sreenivasa Murthy
Dumala Vahpara Gram Panchayat v. Chunilal Tribhovandas Patel & Ors.
G. Amalorpavam v. R.C. Diocese of Madurai
Gannmani Anasuya v. Parvatini Amarendra Chowdhari
Girijanandini Devi v. Bijendra Narain Choudhary
Mahmad Ahmadbhai v. Fatmaben Abdulla & Ors. 2007(4) GLR 2789
Prajapati Abraham Nagarbhai & Anr. v. Prajapati Harjibhai & Ors.
Santosh Hazari v. Purushottam Tiwari
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.