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

1971 Supreme(Cal) 46

SANTOSH KUMAR CHAKRAVARTI
HEMANTA KUMAR DEY – Appellant
Versus
TARAMANI DEVI TIBRIWALLA – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
Ashoke Kumar Sen Gupta, Hirendra Chunder Ghosh, SAMINDRA CHANDRA GHOSE

SANTOSH KUMAR CHAKRAVARTI, J.

( 1 ) AN application under Order 21, Rule 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure had been filed by the opposite party No 1 on the 2nd August, 1968 and the allegations are that she was dispossessed from the premises in question on the 25th May 1968 but she came to know about it only ten days before the 2nd of August, 1968, as she was at Kathamandu. The decree-holder, who is the petitioner before me, contended that the application was time barred not having been filed within thirty days from the date of dispossession and prayed to the Court that this point may be taken up at a preliminary hearing of the issues. The court below did not accede to that prayer, even allowed the prayer of the opposite party No. 1 to be examined on commission and then wanted to take down the evidence on all the points end then dispose of the point of limitation also along with the other issues. The decree holder has come up against that order in this rule.

( 2 ) IT is clear that such an application has to be filed within thirty days from the date of dispossession, and here the date of dispossession, is the 25th May. 1968, and the application has been filed much beyond thirty day


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