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

1992 Supreme(Cal) 244

A.M.BHATTACHARJEE, A.N.RAY
MOLLA SIRAJUL HAQUE – Appellant
Versus
GORACHAND MULLICK – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
JYOTIRMOY BHATTACHARYA, P.K.DUTT, Prabir Kumar Samanta

A. M. BHATTACHARJEE, ACTG. C. J.

( 1 ) -FACTS necessary for the disposal of the application before us have been succinctly stated by Ray, J. in his Judgment hereinafter following. The questions of law involved have also been dealt with by him with his usual dexterity. I have agreed wholly with the Order proposed by him and mostly with what he has stated as the reasons for the Order. I say mostly and would therefore indicate hereinbelow where I have not been able to agree with him.

( 2 ) IN the two appeals arising out of two interlocutory Orders passed in suits between the parties, one of the parties has filed an application under Order 23, Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure for recording adjustment of all the suits between the parties on the basis of an alleged agreement. Order 23, Rule 3, though ex facie applying to Courts trying Original Suits, would apply to Appellate Courts also in view of section 107 (2) of the Code investing them with all the powers and duties of Courts of Original Jurisdiction. Ray, J. , has chosen to invoke section 141 of the Code for enabling Appellate Courts to exercise the powers of an Original Court. With respect, the Code applies to Appellate Cour






















































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