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

1988 Supreme(Cal) 29

SUSANTA CHATTERJI
DULAL CHANDRA – Appellant
Versus
BANAMALI GUCHAIT – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
GOPAL CH.MUKHERJEE, SUKDEB CHATTERJI

SUSANTA CHATTERJI, J.


( 1 ) THE present revisional application has been filed challenging the order dt. 22-2-87 in Misc. Appeal No. 116 of 1986 passed by the learned District Judge, Howrah, affirming the order dt. 20-6-86 passed in Misc. Case No. 3585, by the learned Munsif, Uluberia.

( 2 ) IT appears that an application for restoration of Misc. Case No. 24/77 was filed stating the relevant facts. The Misc. Case was dismissed for default on 3-4-82. The learned Munsif dismissed the prayer for restoration considering the background of the case and the explanation furnished by the petitioner was not found to be sufficient as to the absence on the date of hearing. The Misc. appeal was heard by the learned District Judge and the appeal was dismissed on two fold grounds. First, the learned District Judge found that the appeal was not maintainable under O. 43, R. 1 (e) of the Civil P. C. Secondly, he dismissed the appeal on merit also.

( 3 ) I have heard the learned Advocates of the respective parties at length. I have gone through the materials on record. The petition under O. 9, R. 9 was filed and the only point to be considered as on the date of dismissal if the case for default whet




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