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

1965 Supreme(Cal) 139

D.BASU
MANIBALA DASSI – Appellant
Versus
TAMIZUDDIN SAHA – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
MAHENDRA NATH GHOSAL, Sudhir Kumar Dutta

D. BASU, J.

( 1 ) THIS Rule is directed against an order of dismissal of an application under Order 9 Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure which has been affirmed by the learned District Judge. Howrah.

( 2 ) THE original suit, namely, Title Suit No. 79 of 1959 was m-ought by the plaintiff, a lady, for setting aside a kobala on allegations of fraud. The date fixed for peremptory hearing of the suit was February 8, 1960. On the 6th of February, the plaintiff tiled a petition for adjournment or, rather, for shifting the date of peremptory hearing on the ground that the lawyer already existing on the record, Shri Jitendra Nath Chowdhury, was unable to conduct her case owing to old age and ill health and that she had engaged a senior lawyer Shri Kanai Lal Ghose for the purpose; but, because Shri Ghose was engaged in other cases fixed on the date of hearing of this case, that is, February 8, 1960, the plaintiff was seeking for a postponement of the date of hearing. On the 6th, nobody appeared to move the petition for shifting the date of hearing and the court put it up for orders on the 8th. On the 8th, Shri Ghose appeared and moved the petition which was, however, refused and the cou










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