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

2004 Supreme(MP) 445

N.S.AZAD, ARUN MISHRA
SURTYOMAL – Appellant
Versus
CHANDABAI – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
A.K.JAIN, Alok Aradhe, V.Tripathi

ARUN MISHRA, J.

( 1 ) THIS reference has been made by the learned single Judge Hon'ble Shri Justice S. K. Pandey on the question whether revision under Section 23-E of M. P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (hereinafter to be referred to as "the Act") lies against an interlocutory order passed in a proceeding under Section 23-A of the Act as the High Court exercises the same power and follow the same procedure as prescribed under Section 115 of Code of Civil Procedure, in view of the amendment made in Section 115 of CPC by Amendment Act of 1999 by which a proviso has been inserted in Section 115, CPC that High Court shall not, under this section, vary or reverse an order made, or any order deciding an issue, in the course of a suit or proceeding or except where the order, if it had been made in favour of the party applying for revision, would have finally disposed of the suit or other proceedings.

( 2 ) IT was submitted before the Single Bench that revision against interlocutory order is not maintainable under Section 23-E considering that the question of law of immense importance has arisen, which may involve reconsideration of the decision in Smt. Tara Bai v. Second ADJ, Gwalior,































Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
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