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

1954 Supreme(Cal) 167

DEBABRATA MOOKHERJEE, K.C.DAS GUPTA
KASEMALI – Appellant
Versus
AJOYENDU PAUL – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
AMARENDRA MOHAN MITRA, ANIL CHANDRA, ARUNENDRANATH BASU, PROVASH CHANDRA CHATTERJI, SITARAM BANERJI

K. S. DAS GUPTA J.

( 1 ) THE petitioner was defendant in a suit before the Small Cause Court at Alipore for recovery of arrears of rent. The suit was decreed ex parte. On 9-4-1949 he filed an application under Order 9, Rule 13, Civil P. C. , for setting aside the 'ex parte' decree. The provision in Section 17 (1), Provincial Small Cause Courts Act is that the procedure prescribed in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, shall, save in so far as is otherwise provided by that Code or by the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, be the procedure followed in a Court of Small Causes in all suits cognizable by it and in all proceedings arising out of such suits. It was this provision which made available to the petitioner the procedure of an application under Order 9, Rule 13, Civil P. C. , and, as already stated, he took advantage of this provision and filed an application for setting aside the decree. Section 17 (1) has, however, a further provision in its proviso which is in these words:"provided that an applicant for an order to set aside a decree passed 'ex parte' or for a review of judgment shall, at the time of presenting his application, either deposit in the Court the amount due from
















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