<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>1923 (11) TMI 2 - PATNA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=313278</link>
    <description>In a mortgage redemption suit, connected disputes over possession and title to part of the mortgaged property may be tried in the same proceeding where the parties join issue and the court permits or acquiescence appears. Order 2 Rule 4 CPC allows such joinder in a proper case, including claims for possession on redemption. Even if trying those issues together is irregular, Section 99 CPC bars reversal unless the irregularity affects the merits or the court&#039;s jurisdiction; absence of prejudice is decisive. The text therefore treats procedural irregularity as insufficient to disturb the decree where evidence was fully led and no jurisdictional defect was shown.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 14 Nov 1923 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 04 Apr 2024 17:00:57 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=749112" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1923 (11) TMI 2 - PATNA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=313278</link>
      <description>In a mortgage redemption suit, connected disputes over possession and title to part of the mortgaged property may be tried in the same proceeding where the parties join issue and the court permits or acquiescence appears. Order 2 Rule 4 CPC allows such joinder in a proper case, including claims for possession on redemption. Even if trying those issues together is irregular, Section 99 CPC bars reversal unless the irregularity affects the merits or the court&#039;s jurisdiction; absence of prejudice is decisive. The text therefore treats procedural irregularity as insufficient to disturb the decree where evidence was fully led and no jurisdictional defect was shown.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 14 Nov 1923 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=313278</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>