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

1958 Supreme(Cal) 268

RENUPADA MUKHERJEE
USHAPATI MANDAL – Appellant
Versus
PIONEER COMMERCIAL BANK (IN LIQUIDATION) – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
GURUPRASAD GHOSH, Prasanta Kumar Ghosh

RENUPADA MUKHERJEE, J.

( 1 ) A short question of law which does not appear to be covered directly by any decision of our High Court is involved in this appeal. That question is whether an application for execution of a decree which has been drawn up in confor-mi,y with Rule 11 of Order 21 of the Code of Civil Procedure and which is otherwise in form can be treated as a good application for the purpose of saving limitation if it has been filed by a lawyer who has got no authority to file it.

( 2 ) THE above question of law has arisen for my determination under the following circumstances about which there is no dispute. The Pioneer Commercial Bank (in Liquidation) obtained a decree against appellant Ushapati Mondal on September 2, 1949. It appears that an application for execution of the decree was drawn up in accordance with law and signed by the Official Liquidator Sri P. C. Sen. The application was presented in Court by the Liquidator's Pleader Sri Asoke Charidra Bose on September 2, 1952. The contents of the application were noted in the Register of the executing court and the application was also given a number, namely, No. 44 of 1952 of the executing court. It was, however,




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