Back
HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
K. C. Chunder
JOGAI CHAMARIN - Appellant
Versus
ATUL KRISHNA LAHA - Respondent
A. F. A. O. 47 Of 1952
Decided On : APRIL 30, 1953
Thika Tenancy Act 1949 - Appeal against appellate decree - Application under Section 27 - Provisions of Amendment Act of 1953 - Dismissal of appeal and alternative revisional application
Fact of the Case:
An appeal against an appellate decree affirming the decision of the first Munsif of Sealdah under Section 27 of the Thika Tenancy Act 1949 was dismissed by the court, citing the provisions of the Amendment Act of 1953.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the appeal and alternative revisional application were incompetent and did not lie due to the omission of Sections 28 and 29 of the original Act as per the provisions of the Amendment Act of 1953.
Issues: The main issue was the competency of the appeal and alternative revisional application in light of the provisions of the Amendment Act of 1953.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was influenced by the interpretation of the provisions of the Amendment Act of 1953, which resulted in the dismissal of the appeal and alternative revisional application.
Final Decision: The appeal and alternative revisional application were deemed incompetent and were dismissed by the court, with no order for costs.
( 1 ) THIS is an appeal against an appellate decree of the first subordinate Judge of 24-Parganas affirming that of the first Munsif of Sealdah.
( 2 ) AN application was made under Section 27, Thika Tenancy Act 1949 for rescinding or varying the decree. Against the order passed by the Munsif, an appeal was taken to the Court of the Subordinate Judge and the Subordinate Judge decided that no appeal was competent. Against that an appeal as well as an alternative revisional application have been filed in this Court. Those were pending on 21-10-1952. In view of Section 1 of the Amendment Act of 1953 and its proviso, it is clear that in pending proceedings the old Act as amended by this Amendment Act of 1953 has got to be applied and shall be deemed to have application always. Now as far as Amendment Act is concerned, in Section 8 it says that Sections 28 and 29 of the original Act shall be omitted. The result therefore is that it is to be deemed always not to have Sections 28 and 29 as far as pending proceedings are concerned in view of the proviso to Section 1 of the Amendment Act.
( 3 ) THE result therefore is that Section 28 being omitted this appeal as well as the alternative application for revision are incompetent and do not lie and these are therefore dismissed.
( 4 ) THERE will be no order for costs.
( 5 ) LET the records be sent down without delay.
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
