Recall of Order - Advocate's name not shown in Cause List

Lajwanti v. Union of India, (2000) 10 SCC 345 at page 34

The name of the appellant's advocate not having been shown in the cause-list is a sufficient cause for recalling the order

Replication and stages of pleadings in a civil suit

1.    Delhi: Anant Construction v. Ram Niwas, 1994 (31) DRJ 205 : on replication. Holds that once Court allows replication, it becomes part of the pleading. We have been allowed so by 29.10.2014 order.

2.    Bombay: Mohanraj v. Kewalchand, 2007 (1) Mh LJ 691, para 8: document even if not entered in list of reliance cannot be ignored unless the otherside establishes prejudice.

3.    Delhi: Moti Ram v. Baldev Krishan , 15 (1979) DLT 90, pg 92: Replication is permitted by court forms part of the pleading.

4.    Punjab: Sharda Rani v. Malik Yashpal, (1964) 66 PLR 1126, para 7: when document is referred to and relied upon in the pleadings the contents thereof can be construed as part of pleading.

 

 

Withdrawal without Liberty

Mario Shaw v. Martin Fernandez, 1995 SCC OnLine Bom 313: (1996) 1 Mh LJ 564

 

Or 23, R. 1(4) – Withdrawal of dispute with liberty to file fresh proceedings – if application is made for withdrawal of proceedings with liberty to file fresh proceedings, it is not open for the Court to grant permission only for withdrawal without liberty to institute proceedings though it is open for the Court to reject such application.

 

 

Absence of Co-Owner doesnt prejudice the case of other co-owners to sue

In Smt. Kanta Goel v. B.P Pathak, AIR 1977 SC 1599 their Lordships, whilst reiterating the view in Sri Ram Pasricha v. Jagannath, AIR 1976 SC 2335, observed that the law had been put beyond all doubt that the absence of one of the other co-owners on the record does not in the least disentitle the plaintiff co-owner from suing and succeeding in the proceeding for the eviction of a tenant. 

Inherent jurisdiction and Or 39

Manohar Lal Chopra v. Rai Bahadur Rao Raja Seth Hiralal [AIR 1962 SC 527] held that the civil court has a power to grant interim injunction in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction even if the case does not fall within the ambit of provisions of Order 39, Code of Civil Procedure.

Inherent Right of Procedural Review

AIR 1999 Cal 29  Ratanlal Nahata v. Nandita Bose

Every court has inherent right of procedural review, for substantive review power is required

Interim Protection while withdrawing / dismissing appeal

G.E. Power Controls India v. S. Lakshmipathy [(2005) 11 SCC 509 : 2006 SCC (L&S) 392] .)

Ajay Mohan v. H.N. Rai, (2008) 2 SCC 507

 

Ordinarily, a court, while allowing a party to withdraw an appeal, could not have granted a further relief.

 

 

Hotel Queen Road (P) Ltd. v. Ram Parshotam Mittal, (2014) 13 SCC 646 : (2014) 5 SCC (Civ) 747 : 2013 SCC OnLine SC 624 at page 650

16. In view of the aforestated judgments, it is very clear that if a petition is not maintainable and is ultimately withdrawn, the court should not continue interim relief for a period beyond withdrawal of the writ petition. However, the aforestated observation would not apply to a case where the matter is heard on merits and after considering the facts of the case the court permits withdrawal of the case. In such a case, the court is at liberty to extend the interim relief or can grant interim relief for a limited period after recording reasons for the same.