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

1927 Supreme(Cal) 240

ROY, B. B. GHOSE
Madhu Sudan Kundu – Appellant
Versus
Chhalimaddin Ahammad – Respondent


JUDGMENT

B.B. Ghose, J. - A preliminary objection has been taken on behalf of the plaintiffs-respondents that this appeal is incompetent. The appeal is against the preliminary decree passed on a mortgage, dated the 24th January 1924. The final decree was made on 28th February 1924. The appeal against the preliminary decree was filed on 27th May 1924. It is, therefore, contended that having regard to some of the cases decided in this Court, this appeal is incompetent. Personally I am of opinion that the cases which have been decided after the passing of the CPC of 1908 have not laid down the correct rule. Under this Code, a preliminary decree has an independent existence and by the appeal against the final decree one cannot attack the preliminary decree. The case was different under the old Code. What is now a preliminary decree was supposed to be a preliminary order and the final decree was held to absorb that order and by an appeal against the final decree that order might have been challenged. It was, therefore, held under the old Code that after the passing of the final decree in the case, the preliminary order had no separate existence, and, therefore, the appeal against that or

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