Kolkata Court August 1875 Judgments
Basheer and anr. Vs. Ellem and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-28-1875
Reported in: (1876)ILR1Cal185
Richard Garth, C.J.1. In this case the same question arises as in the last Beni Madhub Ghose v. Kali Churn Singh see post p. 201 note with this difference: 1st, that the Subordinate Judge of Sylhet reviewed his own decision instead of his predecessor's; and 2ndly, that he gives as a reason for the review that he was referred by the pleader to two authorities, decided by the High Court many years ago, one of which he considered to be opposed to his former judgment. He, accordingly, made an order for the review, and reversed his previous decision.2. But the case appears to us to depend upon precisely the same principle as the last, and must be decided in the same way. It is less objectionable, no doubt, in one sense, for a Judge to review his own decision than that of his predecessor's; but he has no more right to do so without sufficient reason in the one case than in the other; and we cannot consider that the production of an authority to which the attention of the Judge was not called...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Poona Kooer
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-25-1875
Reported in: (1876)ILR1Cal101
Glover, J.1. Baboo Moheshchunder Chowdhry, who has appeared for the opposite party, contends that the law does not provide for a review in a case like this, and has quoted in support of his argument the case of Siva v. Chenamma 5 Mad. H.C. Rep. 417 in which it appears to be laid down that the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure regarding reviews of judgment are not applicable to orders passed under Act XXVII of 1860, but there is another case which has been decided in this Court, namely--that of Hameeda Beebee v. Noor Beebee 9 W.R. 394 in which the contrary has been ruled, and which ruling we think we ought to follow. We see no reason why this Court should not exercise jurisdiction in the matter and consider the merits of the application for demanding security to be taken from Mussamut Khatun Kooer to whom the certificate has been granted....
Tag this Judgment!Dorab Ally Khan Vs. Khajah Moheeoodden
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-23-1875
Reported in: (1876)ILR1Cal56
Richard Garth, C.J.1. The plaintiff, therefore, having had then ample warning, must now be considered as having made the allegations in his plaint as strong and precise as was consistent with truth, and we cannot make any presumption in his favour which the language of the plaint does not strictly warrant.2. (His Lordship then stated the allegations made in the plaint and continued): The learned Judge in the Court below considered in the first place that there is nothing on the face of the plaint to show that the proceedings of the Sheriff and also of the execution-oreditor, the present defendant, were not perfectly bond fide; and in this we entirely agree. Whatever illegality or irregularity took place appears to have been the result of mistake; and there is nothing to show that any of the parties had the least notion that they were doing anything but what the law warranted.3. It is stated, however, distinctly in the plaint, and we must assume it as established, that the Sheriff has n...
Tag this Judgment!Monmohinee Dassee Vs. Khetter Gopaul Dey
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-20-1875
Reported in: (1876)ILR1Cal127
Glover, J.1. In Rajmohini Chowdrain v. Denobundhoo Chowdree it is decided that 'Section 6, which is the only section which refers to the right of appeal, limits it to the question of the grant of the certificate. This Court would be able to decide on appeal whether the Judge had selected the proper person to give the certificate to, but there is no section which gives any appeal with reference to the amount of security which the Judge may think it right to demand from the applicant for a certificate, and there is no general section as there is in the cognate Act XL of 1858 with regard to appeals.' And in Bani Madhub Mooherjee v. Nilambur Banerjee 8 W.R. 376 it is said with reference to Section 6,--'the intention of the section was to enable a person aggrieved by the granting of a certificate to some other person to come before the Sudder Court and appeal against such grant.' And the gist of the decision is that, except with reference to the grant of a certificate, there is no appeal al...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›