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

1966 Supreme(J&K) 46

JANKI NATH BHAT
Rahim – Appellant
Versus
Karim – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
Advocate For Appellant: R.C. Nanda
Advocate For Respondent: Janak Lal Sehgal

(1) This is a restoration application in a civil revision petition which was dismissed for default on 18-4-66. The application for restoration was presented on thar very .day with the allegation that the learned counsel for the petitioner was mistaken about the date of hearing. Objections have been filed by the other side.

(2) A .preliminary objection has been taken that this restoration application does not lie. It is argued by Mr. Sehgal that powers conferred upon the High Court under S. 115 Civil P. C. are of a special character. If the High Court is satisfied that a court subordinate to it has decided a case exercising a jurisdiction not vested in it by law or failed to exercise a jurisdiction so vested or to have acted in the exercise of jurisdiction illegally and with material irregularity, the High Court may pass such orders in revision as it thinks fit. The law on revisions is contained in this very section and this section is self-contained. O. 9 or O. 41 has nothing to do with the provisions of this section and do not apply to proceedings under this section According to Mr. Sehgal S. 151 cannot be invoked to entertain an application for restoration of a revision petition d















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