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

1990 Supreme(Pat) 265

BINOD KUMAR ROY
Matia Devi – Appellant
Versus
Masani Devi – Respondent


Judgment

Binod Kumar Roy, J.

1. This is a plaintiffs application whereby she challenges an order passed under Sec. 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter to be referred to as the Code), on an application filed by the defendants-opposite, staying further proceedings of the suit in question on the ground of pendency of a probate case.

2. Notices were issued to the opposite parties, pursuant to an order dated 25-9-1989 to show cause as to why an appropriate final order be not passed in this case at the stage of admission itself. From the office notes, it is clear that notices have been validly served on them under Order V Rule 19(A)-2 of the Code. No one, however, appears on their behalf.

3. Heard Mr. Alok Kumar Sinha, learned Counsel for the petitioner, who submits that probate case No. 5 of 1988 having been filed about three years after the institution of the instant suit in which question of title of the parties cannot be gone into decided, the court below, has exceeded its jurisdiction in staying further proceedings of the instant suit till the decision of the, said probate case on the solitary ground that it would be just and proper to do so. He further submits that the in


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