Prem Parkash v. Jai Parkash
!"#"
$ % &&
!
"
# $
$
$ %%&
'
() + , -!./ 01 $$ 2 3
4 $ 3$$
%& %(%* + , -!&/ 01
$$ 2
$
!& + , -!*/ $ 01
() !( %(%* 0 %
2
0
$
$ $
3
0$ $ 3 0
$
(* %(%*
$
0
0
.
"
# $
0
0 $
0
$
0
" $
!.
6 0 70
!858
9
%% %(%!
"
3
$ $
3$$
*
%8 !!
$
$ 01 3 $$ 3 %(%5
" $
0$ 3-
!"
##$ %!
!& '$( ) * $ &#) $ + $&&+ ,(-!
* ! ! $ * ) %- & ) $ ) .
* ! ! $ ! ())! !(
"!) /$ $ + $&&+ ,(-!( !
*
! ! $ * (& & ()&()0%$ ) 12134145
!"
#$ %&%''(') *
+
, !
- * # , . /0# 1 2('345
$
0 3
$$
-
() %(%* 3 $ 0 $
3 0 $
01
$ 0 $
%(%5
0 $$ 1
1 3 9
0
() : () %(%* $
3
0
3
3
$
3 4 $ "
() %(%*
3 0 $ #
3 1
$ 0$ 3
$
3 $1
$3
$0$ ;
" $
$
() %(%* 3 %& %(%* 01 0
( !) %(%5
1 3
3
$
3 3 0
1 3
3
3 $
$
$1 0
$1 $
3 &
"
3
0 0
#
" !) %(%5
$
1
3
0$
$
3
3 , () %(%*
$ 0
$
%(%5 3$$ $ (* !!
%(%5 3
0
1
$ 0$
3 0 $1
$ 3
3 $
3
3
1
$ <
=
1
3
$ $
$ 3
3 , 01
+3
0
# $
/ 6 $
0 $1 %& )
" #
>
#
$(0
!)( & (0% 5467 4138 ) !) ) 71124138
0
: !) $ !& ## 3
3
-, 3
0 01 1
3 $1 0 ,
01 #
$
" $
0$ 3- 6
!
7 %& 8 %3 ! !
+
! 9 !
:
!
+
; < !
K.K. Velusamy vs N. Palanisamy, (2011) 11 SCC 275 and Ratti Ram vs Mange Ram (D) through LRs and others, 2016 (2) RCR (Civil) 464, powers under Order 18 Rule 17 CPC can only be exercised by the Court according to its convenience and the party to the litigation cannot invoke the said provision.
The aforesaid principle was also reiterated in Vadiraj Nagappa Vemekar vs Sharadchandra Prabhakar Gogate, (2009) 4 SCC 410.
For the reasons recorded hereinabove, I do not see any justification to interfere in the impugned order which is not found to be suffering from any error of jurisdiction. This revision petition is accordingly, dismissed."
)
$ : !) $ !& ## 3
#
3
$$ 1 3
3 0 , 9
#
3
!(
1
$1
0 $
0
$1
*+ ,- ./ 01213 4 & #
= ? @ A@4 ? 0$ A@4