Suja UddIn Vs. ReazuddIn and anr.

Suja Uddin vs ReazuddIn and anr.

Type Court Judgment Court Kolkata Decided Dec 04, 1899

~1 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/869149

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/869149
Court: Kolkata
Judge: Rampini and ;Wilkins, JJ.
Decided On: Dec 04, 1899
Subject: Civil

Case Summary

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

Appeal - Order rejecting an application for restoring to the file an application to set aside a sale in execution of a decree--Civil Procedure Code (XIV of 1882), Sections 311, 588(8)--Execution Proceedings--Dismissal for default. -

Key legal issue: Civil

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Suja Uddin

Respondent

ReazuddIn and anr.

Legal References

Cases Referred: and Raja v. Strinivasa
Reported In: (1900)ILR27Cal414

Excerpt

appeal - order rejecting an application for restoring to the file an application to set aside a sale in execution of a decree--civil procedure code (xiv of 1882), sections 311, 588(8)--execution proceedings--dismissal for default. - rampini and wilkins, jj.1. a preliminary objection has been raised to the hearing of these two appeals. (nos. 69 and 74 of 1899), namely, that no appeals lie; and in support of this contention the case of raja pudmanund singh bahadoor v. doorga pershad doobey (1899) 4 c.w.n., 39, recently decided in this court has been cited.. we think that the facts of the present appeals are similar to the facts of that, case, and on the authority of this ruling and also of the rulings ningappa v. sangawa (1885) i.l.r., 10 bom., 433, and raja v. strinivasa (1888) i.l.r., 11 mad., 319, we dismiss these appeals with costs, which we assess at two gold mohurs in each case.

Full Judgment

Rampini and Wilkins, JJ.

1. A preliminary objection has been raised to the hearing of these two appeals. (Nos. 69 and 74 of 1899), namely, that no appeals lie; and in support of this contention the case of Raja Pudmanund Singh Bahadoor v. Doorga Pershad Doobey (1899) 4 C.W.N., 39, recently decided in this Court has been cited.. We think that the facts of the present appeals are similar to the facts of that, case, and on the authority of this ruling and also of the rulings Ningappa v. Sangawa (1885) I.L.R., 10 Bom., 433, and Raja v. Strinivasa (1888) I.L.R., 11 Mad., 319, we dismiss these appeals with costs, which we assess at two gold mohurs in each case.

Same Parties Suja Uddin vs ReazuddIn and anr. Same Subject Civil Same Judge Rampini and ;Wilkins, JJ.

Civil