Skip to content
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.

Kadar Sheikh Vs. Najamuddi Sheikh

Kadar Sheikh vs Najamuddi Sheikh

Type Court Judgment Court Kolkata Decided Mar 05, 1926
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/876996

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

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
Kolkata
Judge
Decided On
Subject
Civil

Case Summary

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

Provincial Small Cause Courts Act (IX of 1887), Schedule II, Article 35 (ii)--C.P.C. (Act V of 1908), Section 102--Suit for price of paddy misappropriated--Second appeal. -

Key legal issue
Civil

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Kadar Sheikh

Respondent

Najamuddi Sheikh

Legal References

Reported In
97Ind.Cas.556

Excerpt

provincial small cause courts act (ix of 1887), schedule ii, article 35 (ii)--c.p.c. (act v of 1908), section 102--suit for price of paddy misappropriated--second appeal. - cuming, j.1. the plaintiff sued the defendant, for rs. 5-80 as the price of the paddy which he alleged was cut and misappropriated by the defendant.2. the first court dismissed the plaintiff's. suit. on appeal this finding was reversed, the appeal was allowed and the plaintiffs suit was decreed with costs. against this decree the defendant has appealed to this court. a preliminary objection is raised by the respondent that no appeal lies he contend) that section 102 of the c.p.c. is a bar because this is a suit of a nature cognizable by the court of small causes and under the value of rs. 500, hence no second appeal lies to this court.3. the appellant contends that the suit falls within the exception set forth in section 35, clause (ii) of the provincial small cause courts act.4. i am of opinion that the contention of the respondent is correct. the plaint itself does not make out any criminal offence. nor is it the case of the defendant that he committed any criminal offence. in the circumstances the suit is of a nature cognizable by a court of small causes and no second appeal lies to this court, the value being under rs. 500.5. the result is the appeal is dismissed as incompetent.6. the respondent is entitled to his costs.ghose, j.7. i agree.

Full Judgment

Cuming, J.

1. The plaintiff sued the defendant, for Rs. 5-80 as the price of the paddy which he alleged was cut and misappropriated by the defendant.

2. The first Court dismissed the plaintiff's. suit. On appeal this finding was reversed, the appeal was allowed and the plaintiffs suit was decreed with costs. Against this decree the defendant has appealed to this Court. A preliminary objection is raised by the respondent that no appeal lies He contend) that Section 102 of the C.P.C. is a bar because this is a suit of a nature cognizable by the Court of Small Causes and under the value of Rs. 500, hence no second appeal lies to this Court.

3. The appellant contends that the suit falls within the exception set forth in Section 35, Clause (ii) of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act.

4. I am of opinion that the contention of the respondent is correct. The plaint itself does not make out any criminal offence. Nor is it the case of the defendant that he committed any criminal offence. In the circumstances the suit is of a nature cognizable by a Court of Small Causes and no second appeal lies to this Court, the value being under Rs. 500.

5. The result is the appeal is dismissed as incompetent.

6. The respondent is entitled to his costs.

Ghose, J.

7. I agree.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial