These Agam Sutras were orally passed on to future generations. In the course of time, many of the Agam Sutras have been lost, destroyed, or modified. About one thousand years later the Agam Sutras were recorded on Tadpatris leafy paper that was used in those days to preserve records for future references. Swetambar Jains have accepted these sutras as authentic version of His teachings while Digambar Jains use them as a reference.
Jainism existed before Mahavira, and his teachings were based on those of his predecessors. Thus, Mahavira was more of a reformer and propagator of an existing religious order than the founder of a new faith. He followed the well established creed of his predecessor Tirthankar Parshvanath. However, Mahavira did reorganize the philosophical tenets of Jainism to correspond to his times. A few centuries after Mahavira's death, the Jain religious order Sangha grew more and more complex.
There were schisms on some minor points, although they did not affect the original doctrines as preached by Mahavira. Later generations saw the introduction of ritualistic complexities that some have criticized as almost placing Mahavira and other Tirthankars on the thrones of Hindu deities. Mahavira was ranked on Michael H. Hart's list of the most influential figures in history.
- Profits of Doom: Milking the Apocalyptic Cash Cow For All Its Worth?
- MAHAVEERA IT SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED.
- Yellendar Mahaveera.
- EXILED FROM WORKERS PARADISE 1?
- Buy Diviniti Lord Mahaveera Metalic Frame for your car dashboard;
Know more about Lord Swami Mahaveera at : en. RubalJain By: RubalJain. That was a case where the objections filed by decree-holder to an application by the obstructor was treated as an application under Order 21 Rule 97 C. C I here was a specific order by the Court to treat it as such. In the instant case I. A II is dismissed as not maintainable. The respondents-decree-holders have specifically contended that the said application is not maintainable.
Both parties invited order on that question. Moreover in view of the findings in M. Indeed, it was submitted by Mr.
Mahaveera | Rashtrottahana Sahitya
V Swamy that the Court while vacating stay in Misc. As mentioned above till , petitioner continues his possession by virtue of order granted by Supreme Court, while rejecting S.
In the third case namely Manohar Ishwar Chitagi v. Gajanan , the Court was considering as to what is meant by resistance or obstruction and when does it occur and what is the remedy available. On the facts of that case it was held that obstructors were not the tenants and decree could not be executed against them. In the circumstances of that case it was observed that the objections of decree-holders can be treated as an application under Order 21 Rule In the instant case decree-holders has raised an objection regarding the maintainability of the petition filed by the obstructors.
In view of the settled legal position, as also, the provisions of Section 30 of the Rent Control Act and the findings in M. V Swamy submitted that under Order 21 Rule 97 it is only the decree-holder that can approach the Court and secondly this has to be done within thirty days from the date of obstruction, as contemplated by Article of the Limitation Act.
He submitted that since provision is meant for decree-holders, exclusively, they need not seek relief by way of objections.
In the instant case decree-holders have not asked for any relief; their I. A VIII seeking police help is still pending and it has yet to be dealt with. There is nothing in this decision which holds that the application by the obstructor is maintainable under Order 21 Rule 97 C. C Question of maintainability of the Petition was not raised as a preliminary issue. Parties led evidence and the lower Court recorded a finding that Respondents 2 and 3 were not tenants.
In the instant case, that stage has not yet reached. Moreover the question whether Mahaveera II represented by Devichand is a tenant or not, stands concluded by the findings in M. Therefore, on the facts of this case, since the Court below has dismissed the Petition of the obstructor as not maintainable and that being the limited scope of this C. P and on that point, there being no divergent views, I hold that the application filed by the petitioner under Order 21 Rule 97 C.
C was not maintainable. The lower court's finding is confirmed. Point No.
Section 10 is invoked to stay the proceedings before the executing Court, on the ground that O. Section 10 contemplates the trial of two suits, between the same parties, in which matter is directly and substantially the same; in such a Case, the trial of the suit instituted subsequently had to be stayed. In execution, prior to amendment, two types of suits were contemplated; they are 1 Order 21 Rule 63 and 2 Order 21 Rule After amendment, such suits cannot be entertained.
The Order passed under sub-section 4 of Order 21 Rule 58 is treated as a decree similarly all questions of right, title and interest, decided in a proceeding under Rule 97 or Rule 99 shall be determined by the Court dealing with these petitions and separate suit is barred. Resultant position is, after the amendment there cannot be a suit dealing with the dentical issue, which is covered by Order 21 Rules 58, 97 or If such a suit is filed, it is legally not maintainable and the only remedy available to the party would be to take steps as per Order As held above, the Petition filed by petitioner-obstructor was not maintainable under Order 21 Rule The proceedings have no legal sanction.
It is not a suit. In Ismailsab v. P Nanjunda Shetty. CRP of DD. Section also cannot be invoked unless execeptional circumstances are proved in the case. D 11 , that Section 10 is inapplicable to the appeals pending before Assistant Commissioner in tenancy appeals, where a suit for declaration was pending. This was the position where the two proceedings were legally tenable. Situation would be worse if the suit is barred and the proceedings sought to be stayed are not legally maintainable. Courts cannot be a contributing party to the dilatory tactics. Indeed every attempt must be made for early adjudication.
click here Moreover, in these proceedings, and between the same parties, it is already decided that the tenancy only with Jugraj and neither Mahaveera II nor Devichand have any tenancy rights. Their possession was traceable through Jugraj, who was a partner in Mahaveera II. In this situation petitioner cannot invoke Section 10 C.
C; the said provision is not applicable. Hence Court below has rightly rejected I. A III. For the foregoing reasons these petitions must fail; they are rejected with costs. Advocate's fees in each of these casts is Rs. Only respondents 1 to 4 would be entitled to costs. Log In India UK. Please log in or sign up for a free trial to access this feature.
ON OFF. Upload brief to use the new AI search. Ps Nos. Section 21 1 i f h and p of the Karnataka Rent Control Act,. Section 30 of the Karnataka Rent Control Act,. Section 10 C. C; the said provision. Section 30 of the Rent Control Act,. Article of the Limitation Act.