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

2002 Supreme(Cal) 443

D.K.SETH, JYOTESH BANERJEE
NILMONI MAZUMDAR – Appellant
Versus
SANGHAMITRA MAZUMDAR – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
AMALESH ROY, DEBASHIS GUN, JYOTIRMOY BHATTACHARYA

D. K. SETH, J.

( 1 ) THE learned Counsel for the appellant had made an application for stay of the judgment in an appeal arising out of an order passed under S. 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1956 (HM Act ). Sub-sec. (2) of S. 28 of HM Act provides for an appeal to a Court to which the appeal lies from the Court having original jurisdiction. In this case, admittedly, appeal lies to the High Court. Section 21 of the HM Act prescribes application of Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) as far as possible. It is contended on behalf of the appellant that this appeal does not require any hearing under Order 41 Rule 11 of CPC, since it is a special right of appeal provided under the special statute. The right of appeal is available without any admission of the appeal. According to him, Order 41 Rule 11 of CPC cannot apply in respect of such an appeal.

( 2 ) MR. Jyotirmoy Bhattacharyya was along with Mr. Jiban Ratan Chatterjee were requested to assist the Court on the question. The Court records its appreciation of the assistance rendered by them.

( 3 ) SINCE S. 21 of the HM Act specifically makes it clear that all proceedings subject to the provisions contained in HM Act shall be regulated






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