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

1956 Supreme(Cal) 66

LAHIRI
PHANI BHUSAN MUKHERJEE – Appellant
Versus
PHANI BHUSAN MUKHERJEE – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
S.C.DAS GUPTA, S.P.BANERJEE, SUBODH CHANDRA SEN, SUDHANSU K.HAZRA

LAHIRI, J.

( 1 ) THIS Rule has been obtained by the plaintiff against an order of the 1st Munsif, Hooghly, in Misc. Judicial Case No. 1 of 1955 by which the learned Munsif has dismissed the plaintiff's application under Order 9, Rule 4 of the C. P. C. The suit out of which this Rule arises was instituted by the plaintiff on the 23rd December, 1950 for a declaration of title to and recovery of possession of a certain sum of money due upon an award under the Land Acquisition Act. The plaintiff is a diety named Banlinga Shiva Thakur represented by his shebait, Shri Phani Bhusan Mukhopadhyay. After the completion of the preliminary stages, the suit was fixed for peremptory hearing on the 29th May, 1952 on which date the plaintiff attended the Court but the defendants were absent and the suit was taken up for ex parte hearing. The plaintiff shebait Phani Bhusan Mukherjee was examined and two documents were marked as Exs. 1 and 2. The plaintiff's claim was held by the Munsif to have been proved and an ex parte decree followed. This ex pafte decree, however, was subsequently set aside on an application under Order 9, Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure by an order dated the 3rd March,





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