Back
CHAKRABARTI, GUHA RAY
SATYADHYAN GHOSAL – Appellant
Versus
DEORAJIN DEBI – Respondent
What is the effect of an order of remand on the finality required for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court under Article 133(1)(c) of the Constitution? What are the conditions under which Section 28 of the Calcutta Thika Tenancy Act, 1949, survives for the purposes of a tenant's application and whether the remand order can be treated as final? What are the implications for the Munsif's remaining judicial functions upon remand when considering rescission or variation of a decree under Section 28?
Key Points: - The remand order is not a final order for Article 133(1)(c) purposes because further judicial functions remain to be performed by the Munsif. (!) - Section 28 of the Calcutta Thika Tenancy Act, 1949 survives for the tenant’s application, and a tenant may come under the new definition of a "thika tenant" after amendments. (!) - Even on remand, the Munsif must examine the decree against the Act provisions and decide whether to rescind or vary the decree, indicating ongoing judicial function. (!) - The High Court’s remand order cannot be treated as final; hence no leave to appeal to the Supreme Court can be granted under Article 133(1)(c). (!) - The overall decision holds that the application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court is rejected. (!)
( 1 ) THIS is an application under Article 133 (1) (c), Constitution of India, for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court from a decision of a Division Bench of this Court, dated 9-9-1953, and given in the revisional jurisdiction. By that decision, this Court set aside an order of a Munsif, dismissing an application under Section 28, Calcutta Thika Tenancy Act, 1949, and remanded the case to the Court below for disposal of the same in accordance with law. By 'case' must be understood the application made by the 'thika' tenant under Section 28 of the Act.
( 2 ) THE questions involved in the proposed appeal are undoubtedly questions of great public importance and had it not been for the technical difficulty that the order sought to be appealed from is not a final order, I would not have the slightest hesitation in granting the leave prayed for. This Court, however, has already held that by reason of the form in which Sub-claise (c) of Article 133 (1) has been expressed, it is no longer possible for a High Court to grant leave to appeal to the Supreme Court in any case in which the order I sought to be appealed from is not a final order.
( 3 ) MR. Gupta contended
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
