Back
CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Trevelyan, J., Beverley, J.
Subha Bibi - Appellant
Versus
Hara Lal Das & Anr. - Respondent
Decided On : 14-02-1894
Civil Procedure - Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) - Sections 317 - Summary
Fact of the Case:
The case involves the interpretation of Section 317 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) and its application to bar the suit.
Finding of the Court:
The court agrees with the judgment in Kanizak Sukina v. Monohur Das, which supports the cases of Seetanath Ghose v. Madhub Narain Roy Chowdhry and Khyrat Ali v. Syfullah Khan, and declines to refer the case to a Full Bench, dismissing the appeal with costs.
Issues: Whether the terms of Section 317 of the CPC bar the suit.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relies on the precedents set in Kanizak Sukina v. Monohur Das, Seetanath Ghose v. Madhub Narain Roy Chowdhry, and Khyrat Ali v. Syfullah Khan, which support the dismissal of the appeal.
Final Decision: The appeal is dismissed with costs.
JUDGMENT
Trevelyan and Beverley, JJ. - The only real question for our decision is whether the terms of Section 317 of the CPC bar the suit. As against the appellant's contention there are to be found at least three reported cases of this Court, Kanizak Sukina v. Monohur Das I.L.R Cal. 204 Seetanath Ghose v. Madhub Narain Roy Chowdhry 1 W.R. 329 and a third case, not so much in point, Khyrat Ali v. Syfullah Khan 8 W.R. 130. There are also against the appellant's contention two Allahabad cases, Sohun Lall v. Lala Gya Pershad 6 N.W. 265, and Puran Mal. v. Ali Khan ILR All. 285.
2. It is true that the appellant has in his favour a very recent case--Rama Kurup v. Sridevi I.L.R Mad. 290 in which the learned Judges came to the conclusion that the case of Kanizak Sukina v. Monohur Das ILR Cal. 204 was wrong; but in that case the learned Judges do not seem to have been referred to any of the other decisions.
3. Before we could give effect to the appellants' contention we should have to refer the case to a Full Bench : but as we agree with the judgment of Mitter and Macpherson, JJ., in Kanizak Sukina v. Monohur Das ILR 12 Cal. 204 which supports the cases of Seetanath Ghose v. Madhub Narain Roy Chowdhry 1 W.R. 329 and Khyrat Ali v. Syfullah Khan 8 W.R. 130 we decline to refer this case to a Full Bench, and dismiss the appeal with costs.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
