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

1980 Supreme(MP) 179

S.S.SHARMA, M.L.MALIK, C.P.SEN
MITTHULAL – Appellant
Versus
BADRI PRASAD – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
J.P.SANGHI, KU.KANTI RAO, Y.S.DHARMADHIKARI

C. P. SEN, J.

( 1 ) THE following questions have been referred to the Full Bench for opinion as the questions are of general importance:- (i) Where one part of the order is not appealable, while the other part of the same order is appealable as a decree, but the second part is followed as a necessary consequence of the former part of the order, does a revision lie from the former part?

(ii) Where it is held that by reason of some of the legal representatives of the deceased having not been brought on record, the suit cannot proceed and stands abated, will a revision lie from such order, although in the latter part of the same order, the suit is dismissed or consigned to the record?

( 2 ) CERTAIN material facts are required to be stated in order to fully appreciate the questions referred The deceased plaintiff Parmabai filed a suit against the non-applicants-defendants for declaration of her title and for perpetual injunction restraining them from interfering with her possession of the property, parmabai died on 24-10-1973. On 27-11-1973 the applicants filed an application under Order 22, Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure for being substituted as legal representatives of the decea























































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