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

1988 Supreme(Cal) 27

A.M.BHATTACHARJEE, AJIT KUMAR NAYAK
R. S. Cambray and Co. (P. ) Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
Bishnu Banerjee – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
Samaresh Banerjee, for Petitioner; Pradipta Roy, for Respondent.

Judgement

A.M. BHATTACHARJEE, J. :- During the hearing of this revision against an order dismissing an application for attachment before judgement under the provisions of Order 38, Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure, a question arose as to whether the impugned order is appealable under the Code. An appeal and a revision, being mutually exclusive, cannot co-exist and a revision cannot lie to this Court where an appeal lies to this Court or to any Court subordinate to this Court, as has now been made expressly clear by Sub-Section (2) of Section 115, inserted by the Amendment Act of 1976.

2. In this case, on an application being made by the plaintiff under Order 38, Rule 5 for attachment before judgement, the trial Court directed the plaintiff to show cause why he should not furnish security, but no conditional order of attachment was made under sub-rule (3) of Rule 5. And on the defendant showing cause and after hearing the parties, the trial Judge has dismissed this application. Is such an order refusing attachment before judgement appealable ? It would be so only if the same can be regarded to have been passed under Rule 6 of Order 38, that being the only Rule, orders whereunder












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