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

1928 Supreme(Cal) 130

RANKIN, MUKERJI
Kamiruddin Mallik – Appellant
Versus
Sm. Bishupriya Chowdhurani – Respondent


JUDGMENT

Mukerji, J. - The question that arises for consideration in this appeal is whether the appeal which the appellant had filed in the Court below was time barred. The facts necessary to be set out for the purposes of this appeal are these : After a good deal of litigation in connexion with an application u/s 105, Ben. Ten Act, the final order was passed on 18th April 1925 by which the Revenue Officer made certain corrections in the record as against the appellant after rejecting an application which the appellant had made for an opportunity to adduce some further evidence. On 18th May 1925, an appeal was taken from this decision of the Revenue Officer to the Special Judge being Special Appeal No. 2 of 1925. This appeal was disposed of by the Special Judge on 31st October 1925. the learned Judge holding that the appeal was not competent as it had been, filed against that portion of the order of the Revenue Officer by which he had rejected the appellant's application for an opportunity to adduce further evidence. He, however, held that an appeal as against the order making the correction would be maintainable and to use his own words, he said "can appeal against the entry now th

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