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

1926 Supreme(Cal) 293

SANDERSON, PANTON
Pran Kumar Pal Chaudhury – Appellant
Versus
Darpahari Pal Chaudhury – Respondent


JUDGMENT

Sanderson, C.J. - This is an appeal by Pran Kumar Pal Chaudhury against the judgment of my learned brother Mr. Justice Gregory, delivered on the 23rd of March 1926. It appears that certain probate proceedings were pending in the Court of the learned District Judge of Barisal in which the appellant was the plaintiff and the respondent was the defendant.

2. A Rule had bean granted by a learned Judge, sitting on the Original Side of this Court, calling upon the appellant to show cause why the Probate Suit No. 2 of 1925 pending ins the Court of the District Judge of Barisal should not be removed from the said Court at Barisal to this Court for trial of the same by the High Court.

3. The Rule was heard by Mr. Justice Gregory and on the merits, he came to the conclusion that, for the purpose of justice and on considerations of convenience, it was proper that the probate case pending at Barisal should be removed and tried and determined in the High Court He therefore, made the Rule absolute and, in the exercise of the power conferred by Clause 13 of the Letters Patent, he directed that Probate Case No. 2 of 1925 then pending in the Court of the District Judge of Barisal should be re

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