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

1932 Supreme(All) 216

C. J, SULAIMAN
Jai Karan – Appellant
Versus
Panchaiti Akhara Chota Naya Udasi Nanak Shahi – Respondent


JUDGMENT

Sulaiman, C.J. - After arguments were heard in this case I dictated the order, and Mr. Ambika Prasad left the Court after the order was dictated. Mr. Shankar Sahai Verma states, and I accept his statement, that he made a request that the judgment should not be signed and that the question of limitation should be reconsidered. The order was, however, signed along with a number of other orders which were submitted by the judgment-writer. Mr. Verma then brought it to my notice that Section 20, Lim. Act, had been amended. I think there has been a misunderstanding in this case, and in view of the request made by Mr. Shankar Sahai, which was acceded to, the order was signed inadvertently. In the exercise of my inherent jurisdiction I set aside the order and direct that the case should be put up for further hearing.

2. This is an application in revision by the judgment-debtor from an order of the Court of Small Causes dismissing his objection to the execution of a money decree. The decree was passed on 10th June 1927. On 29th December 1929, Rs. 85 are said to have been paid by the judgment-debtor out of Court to the decree-holder. The decree holder applied to certify it on 16th Mar

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