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

1964 Supreme(Cal) 65

BANERJEE, D.BASU
SUBODH KUMAR TALUKDAR – Appellant
Versus
TINCOWRIE SEN – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
GAGANENDRA KRISHNA DEB, Sudhansu Kumar Sen

BANERJEE, J.

( 1 ) EJECTMENT suits 2044 and 2043 of 1960 were heard analogously by the Judge, IX Bench of the City Civil Court, Calcutta, and were dismissed by one and the same judgment. Against the two decrees made in the two suits, the appellants preferred two First Appeals to this Court, on January 18, 1963, being F. A. T. 202 and 203 of 1963. The memorandum of appeal in F. A. T. 202 of 1963 was filed accompanied by certified copies of both the judgment and the decree, as required under Order XLI, rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The memorandum of appeal in F. A. T. 203 of 1963, however, was filed accompanied by the certified copy of the decree only.

( 2 ) THE appellants should have applied for an order dispensing with the filing of the certified copy of the judgment in F. A. T. 203 of 1963, because their intention was to have F. A. T. 202 and F. A. T. 203 of 1963 heard together in this Court and, in that event, the filing of a second certified copy of the judgment was wholly unnecessary. They did not, however, do so, at the time they filed the appeals.

( 3 ) NOW, under Order XLI, rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure - "the memorandum of appeal shall be accompanied by

















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