Emperor Vs. D, a Pleader

Emperor vs D, a Pleader

Type Court Judgment Court Kolkata Decided Feb 05, 1934

~1 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/865826

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/865826
Court: Kolkata
Decided On: Feb 05, 1934
Subject: Civil

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Key legal issue: Civil

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Emperor

Respondent

D, a Pleader

Legal References

Reported In: AIR1934Cal794

Excerpt

- m.c. ghose, j.1. upon hearing dr. basak in support of the reference and mr. mukerji on behalf of the pleader against whom these proceedings were started, we are of opinion, upon consideration of all the circumstances, that it is not established beyond reasonable doubt that the pleader d actually signed the petition of compromise which was put in. it is true that the munsif, who tried the suit, found against the pleader but, on appeal, the additional district judge disbelieved the evidence and came to the conclusion, as a final judge of fact, that it was not established that d signed the petition. in this view of the matter we are of opinion that the charge framed against him has not been established. the reference is rejected.lort-williams, j.2. i agree.

Full Judgment

M.C. Ghose, J.

1. Upon hearing Dr. Basak in support of the reference and Mr. Mukerji on behalf of the pleader against whom these proceedings were started, we are of opinion, upon consideration of all the circumstances, that it is not established beyond reasonable doubt that the pleader D actually signed the petition of compromise which was put in. It is true that the Munsif, who tried the suit, found against the pleader but, on appeal, the Additional District Judge disbelieved the evidence and came to the conclusion, as a final judge of fact, that it was not established that D signed the petition. In this view of the matter we are of opinion that the charge framed against him has not been established. The reference is rejected.

Lort-Williams, J.

2. I agree.

Same Parties Emperor vs D, a Pleader Same Subject Civil

Civil