Niyam v2 is live — start for just ₹100 — 200 credits to try

october 1965

Supreme Court of India · 1965-10-07

GULAB RAI AND ANR. vs PUNIYA

Citation / case number
SC 1964/90374
Court
Supreme Court of India
Petitioner
GULAB RAI AND ANR.
Respondent
PUNIYA
Author
GAJENDRAGADKAR, P.B. (),WANCHOO, K.N.,HIDAYATULLAH, M.,SHAHC.,SIKRI, S.M.
Bench
GAJENDRAGADKAR, P.B. (CJ),WANCHOO, K.N.,HIDAYATULLAH, M.,SHAH, J.C.,SIKRI, S.M.

Judgment text excerpt

The Supreme Court held that an appeal to the Division Bench under clause 18 of the Rajasthan High Court Ordinance is competent, despite the dismissal by a single Judge, as per sections 47 and 48 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890. The Court clarified that section 48 does not impose a bar on the appeal's competence and that the provisions of section 47 do not restrict the appeal under clause 18(1). The Court emphasized that the finality of the trial court's order is subject to the provisions of section 47 and section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

GULAB RAI AND ANR. vs PUNIYA · Niyam