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

1981 Supreme(Cal) 40

B.N.MAITRA
SANTILATA PAUL – Appellant
Versus
NANDA KISHORE MUKHERJEE – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
GANESH CHANDRA BASAK, MADAN MOHAN MAILICK

B. N. MAITRA, J.

( 1 ) THE landlord opposite parties Nos. 1 to 4 filed an execution case after they had obtained an ex parte decree for ejectment in Title Suit No. 303 of 1974. Resistance was offered and thus they filed an application according to the provisions of Rule 97 of Order 21 of the Code of Civil Procedure. They asked for eviction of the occupants with police help. That Misc. Case was allowed. Hence this revisional application.

( 2 ) IT has been contended on behalf of the petitioners that the learned Munsif made a mistake in not entering into the merits of the case. It was not a summary investigation. Moreover, in view of the provisions of Order 21, Rule 104 of the Code, it is not necessary to file any appeal. The revisional application is maintainable.

( 3 ) THE learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the opposite parties has maintained the contrary.

( 4 ) THE first question arises whether it was a summary proceeding and whether the question of title can be gone into by the learned Munsif at that stage Of the proceeding. Rule 101 of Order 21 of the Code clinches the issue on this, for it says:"all questions (including questions relating to right, title or interest in




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