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

1950 Supreme(Cal) 75

ROXBOURGH
Mono Mohan Das Gupta – Appellant
Versus
Umarani Sanyal – Respondent


Advocates:
Chandra S. Sen, Sudhir K. Acharya, Abinash Ch. Bose and Durgesh P. Das - for Petnr; Girija P. Sanyal and Prasun Ch. Ghose - for Opposite Party.

Order. - This is a Rule against an order of a Judge of the Calcutta Ct. of Small Causes refusing to entertain an appln. made by an occupant of a premises against whom an order under ch. vii, Presidency Small Cause Courts Act had been made by consent. The order in question was made on 16-3-1949, and the date for delivery of possession was fixed as 20-9-1949. The record shows that according to the procedure of the Ct. for the carrying out of the order the appct. in the proceedings under ch. vii filed a writ of possession on 13-9-1949. The rules regarding the procedure are 109 and 110 in vol. 2 of the Manual of the Court of Small Causes. The form of the rule is prescribed at p. 238 of the same volume. On 14 9-1949, that is on the following day, the deft. made an appln. purporting to be under s. 47, C. P. C. for permanent stay of the order. By consent, the actual date of delivery of possession was put off from time to time pending the disposal of the appln. Finally, on 30th November, the learned Judge passed the order which is the subject-matter of the present Rule in which he has held that there being no execution in process the judgment-debtor cannot maintain the present appln. under


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