RUMA PAL, DALVEER BHANDARI
Gurdev Kaur – Appellant
Versus
Kaki – Respondent
JUDGMENT
Dalveer Bhandari, J.—Leave granted.
2. Judges must administer law according to the provisions of law. It is the bounden duty of judges to discern legislative intention in the process of adjudication. Justice administered according to individual’s whim, desire, inclination and notion of justice would lead to confusion, disorder and chaos.
3. Indiscriminate and frequent interference under Section 100 C.P.C. in cases which are totally devoid of any substantial question of law is not only against the legislative intention but is also the main cause of huge pendency of second appeals in the High Courts leading to colossal delay in the administration of justice in civil cases in our country.
4. Despite declaration of law in numerous judgments, it is evident that the scope and ambit of Section 100 C.P.C. has not been properly appreciated and applied in a large number of cases. We are, once again making a serious endeavour to discern legislative intention, ambit and scope of interference under Section 100 C.P.C. We plan to carry out this exercise by critically examining important judgments decided before and after 1976 amendment in the Section 100 C.P.C. This effort is made with the h
Panchugopal Barua v. Umesh Chandra Goswami
Kshitish Chandra Purkait v. Santosh Kumar Purkait
Dnyanoba Bhaurao Shemade v. Maroti Bhaurao Marnor
Kanai Lal Garari v. Murari Ganguly
Santosh Hazari v. Purushottam Tiwari
Kamti Devi (Smt.) and Anr. v. Poshi Ram
Thiagarajan v. Sri Venugopalasawamy B. Koli
Deity Pattabhiramaswamy v. S. Hanymayya & Ors.
Commissioner, Hindu Religious & Charitable Endowments v. P. Shanmugama
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.