SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

1961 Supreme(Pat) 96

N.L.UNTWALIA
Fagu Ram Mahadeo Ram – Appellant
Versus
Pannalal – Respondent


Judgment

N.L.Untwalia, J.

1. This is a miscellaneous second appeal by the judgment-debtor and the only point pressed on its behalf is that the transfer of the decree by the small cause court at Calcutta for execution to the court of the 2nd Munsif at Buxar is not in accordance with Rule 5 of Order 21 read with Sec. 40 of the Code of Civil Procedure, hereinafter referred to as the Code. In this particular case, it seems the small cause court at Calcutta, which had passed the decree, sent it directly for execution to the court of 2nd Munsif at Buxar and did not send it through the district Judge of Shahabud, as required by Order 21 Rule 5 of the Code. Both the courts below have rejected this contention put forward on behalf or the appellant, and, in my opinion, they are right in the view of law taken by them.

2. Section 8 of the Code provides-

"Save as provided in Sections 24, 38 to 41, 75, Clauses (a), (5) and (c), 76, 77 and 155 to 158 and by the Presidency Small Cause Courts Act, 1882 , the provisions in the body of this Code shall not extend to any suit or proceeding in any Court of Small Causes established in the towns of Calcutta, Madras and Bombay:"

Section 40 is one of the sec










Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top