Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
B.R. DUBE, J.
Badrilal – Appellant
Vs.
Sampat – Respondent
C. Revn. No. 626 of 1978 (I)
Decided on : 04-09-1978
(2) Civil P.C., 1908-S. 151, O.41, Rr. 23 and 25-inherent powers-whether may be exercised to remand the case-powers of remand under O.41, R.23 or 25 not exercised -case remanded-effect.
1. This revision is directed against the order dated 27-7-78, passed by the learned Second Additional District Judge, Ujjain, in Civil Misc. Appeal No.4 of 77, whereby the trial Court's order disposing of the applications made by the applicant and the non-applicants for temporary injunction was set aside and the case was remanded back for reconsideration.
Held: The lower Court in the impugned order has said that the trial Court disposed of the applications with respect to the grant of injunction without considering the material facts. The contention of the learned counsel for the applicant is that the lower appellate Court could have considered those facts and given its own finding. It is true that the order of remand does not fall either under Order 41, rule 23 or Order 41, rule 25 CPC and instead of remanding the case the lower appellate Court could have arrived at its own finding after considering the material on record which was ignored by the trial Court. However, the order of remand can be taken to be one under section 151 CPC. The impugned order, if allowed to stand would not cause prejudice to the applicant. It would also not cause any irreparable injury. It is urged that on account of the said remand the grant of temporary injunction sought by the applicant would be delayed. This contention cannot be pressed into service while invoking the revisional powers of this Court.
Revision dismissed.
SupremeToday
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
A valid signature must be in the candidate's own handwriting, as emphasized by the General Clauses Act and relevant case law.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
