Appeal High Court Order 33 Rule 2: Final or Interlocutory?

2023 0 Supreme(All) 1951

The preliminary issue on which submissions have been made by the counsel for the parties, raises a legal question as to whether the passing of a final order pursuant to the remand would constitute a bar either to the institution or the hearing of appeal under Order XLIII Rule 1(u) against the remand ... , Rule 1(u), against#....

(A) Rules of Court 2012 - Order 14A, Order 33 - High Court's dismissal of the Plaintiff's application for summary judgment regarding ... 14A/ Order 33 Rules of the Court 2012 vide Enclosure 89. ... [2]The Appellant however is dissatisfied and has appealed to the Court of Appeal against the decision....

2023 4 Supreme 125

Referring to Rules 97 to 106, this Court further held that they were intended to deal with every sort of resistance or obstruction raised by any person and that Rule 97(2) made it incumbent on the court to adjudicate upon such complaint in accordance with the procedure laid down. ... Rajiv Trust & Anr., (1998) 3 SCC 723 found it difficult to agree with the High #HL_STAR....

High Court Malaya Kuala Lumpur

(A) Rules of 2012 – Order 14A and Order 33 – Appeal against dismissal of application for determination of legal questions. ... 2 and 5 of the Rules of 2012 ("Rules of "), all of which read: Order 14A - Disposal of case on point of law Rule 1 - Determination of questions of law or construction (1) The Court may, upon the application o....

High Court Malaya Kuala Lumpur

This rule is to be read with O 33 r 2. ... The Law [8] Determination of preliminary issue in a nutshell: O 33 r 2, O 33 r 5 and O 14 RC 2012: (a) Are procedural rules assisting the Court in expeditiously disposing of a matter, saving costs and time in judicial proceedings ... To go for a full trial in cases of that....

High Court Malaya Shah Alam

(A) Rules of Court 2012 – Order 14 and Order 33 – Application for summary judgment – Plaintiff-bank claimed against the Defendant ... , subject to allocator, to the Defendant; and (c) pursuant to O 33 r 2 of the Rules of 2012, this court orders that the following questions be tried first in a preliminary trial: (i) what is meant by the phrase "Payment....

High Court Malaya Kuala Lumpur

Order 33 rr 2 and 5 of the Rules of 2012 provide as follows: "ORDER 33 MODE OF TRIAL Mode of trial (O 33 r 1) 1. .......... Time of trial of questions or issues (O 33 r 2) 2. ... [12] Pursuant to O 33 r 2 read together with O 33#HL_E....

Court of Appeal Putrajaya

Order 33 of the Rules of Court 2012 provides as follows: "Mode of trial (O 33 r 2 of the Rules of Court 2012 if the material facts are in dispute. However, to grant or otherwise of an application under the said Order is entirely to the learned judge's exercise of discretion. ... 2017, ("Suit No #HL_....

High Court Malaya Kuala Lumpur

Mahinder Singh a/l Bachhittar Singh (supra), KN Segara JCA held that O 35 rule (2) (1) of the then Rules of the High 1980 was not applicable to the factual matrix of the case as the learned High court judge was functus officio upon pronouncement of the final judgment. ... [18] As the result, the Appellant on 1 March 2021 appealed again to the #HL_STA....

High Court Malaya Melaka

[13] On 7 November 2022 the Plaintiff applied to the High Court for an Order to Seize the Lands in execution of the Enforcement Order pursuant to O 47 r 6 of the Rules of Court 2012 ("ROC 2012"). ... This was pursuant to s 28 of the CIPAA 2012. ... [18] On 12 January 2023 the Plaintiff a....

2018 0 Supreme(Ker) 441

The answer to the question whether the order is final or not will not depend on whether the controversy between the parties is finally decided or not by such an order. To judge whether the order is final, it is not always necessary to correlate the decision in every case with the facts in controversy. The question can be examined from another angle also. An order is not a final order unless it finally decides the rights of the parties.

2013 0 Supreme(Guj) 529

We should, however, not be understood to express our approval of the use of Article 227 for seeking relief by way of writs or directions in the nature of writs for which purpose Art.226 is expressly and in precise language designed. From that point of view if otherwise the High Court, while disposing of a petition under Art.227, finally settles some points affecting the rights of the parties then to that extent the impugned order may be considered to operate as a final order just as ....

2004 0 Supreme(MP) 674

It follows that an interim order, which is made provisionally, pending disposal of the writ petition, and whose effect can be modified, altered, vacated, reversed or nullified by the final order disposing of the writ petition, cannot obviously be a 'judgment' as it does not finally determine any rights and obligation of parties. Therefore, in place of the elaborate principles relating to appealability of interlocutory orders in civil suits under Letters Patent considered by S....

2004 0 Supreme(MP) 680

Therefore, in place of the elaborate principles relating to appealability of interlocutory orders in civil suits under Letters Patent considered by Shah Babulal Khimji, the Supreme Court while dealing with appealability of interlocutory orders in writ proceedings, abridged and narrowed down the principles in Central Mine, by stating that the orders involving the final determination of vital and valuable rights and obligations of parties are to be considered as 'judgments'. It follows....

1984 0 Supreme(Ker) 270

Oh the merits, the order or direction of the learned Single Judge, was assailed. The order sought to be appealed against has not finally disposed of the rights of the parties. The learned Advocate General argued that the common order sought to be appealed against is a "final order" adjudicating the rights of parties coming within S.5(i) of the Kerala High Court Act, 1958 and hence appealable. We heard the learned Advocate General online "maintainability of t....