Kolkata Court August 1876 Judgments
Sib Chunder Mullick Vs. Kissen Dyal Opadhya and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-31-1876
Reported in: (1876)ILR1Cal477
Richard Garth, C.J.1. We are of opinion that a Court of Small Causes, constituted under Act IX of 1850, can, during the same day, and at the same sitting of the Court, ex parte restore a cause once struck out under Section 42, though the order for striking off may have been duly recorded.2. It is always, of course, open to the defendant in such a case to apply to the Court upon sufficient grounds to set aside the ex parte order; and the sufficiency of such grounds would in each case be a question for the discretion of the Judge.3. The sum of Rs. 230, which has been brought into Court by the plaintiff in this case, will be refunded to him....
Tag this Judgment!The Queen Vs. Baijoo Lall and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-23-1876
Reported in: (1876)ILR1Cal451
Macpherson, J.1. This is an application to quash an order of the Judge of Gya, under Section 471 of the Criminal Procedure Code, sending the plaintiff in a Civil suit and two of his witnesses to a Magistrate for enquiry into charges of giving false evidence, &c.;2. I say the order was made under Section 471 of the Criminal Procedure Code, because although Section 16 of Act XXIII of 1861[1] gives Civil Courts powers similar to those conferred on Civil and Criminal Courts alike by Section 471, there can be no doubt that the whole law is now embodied in Section 471, and our jurisdiction to interfere in the matter is not affected by a suggestion that the order in question was, or might have been, made under Section 16 of Act XXIII of 1861[2] and not under Section 471.3. The learned Judge stated the facts of the case and continued.4. It is contended for Baijoo Lall and Juggernath that the Judge had no power to make that order, inasmuch as he never made any preliminary enquiry and had no suf...
Tag this Judgment!Bhyrub Chunder Bundopadhya Vs. Soudamini Dabee
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-14-1876
Reported in: (1877)ILR2Cal142
Richard Garth, C.J.1. The question which we propose to decide in this case is whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover from the defendant certain sums paid by the plaintiff for Government revenue due in respect of a share, now owned by the defendant, in a zemindari, the larger share of which belongs to the plaintiff.2. The proceedings do not show very accurately what the precise position of the parties is: but the facts seem to be as follows: The plaintiff' owns as zemindar and putnidar (or partly as zemindar and partly as putnidar) a 15 annas 3 gandas 3 cowries share of an estate, Lot Nimdaba, registered as No. 75 in the Collectorate of Burdwan; and Krishnaprosonno Mozumdar and another were the zemindars of the remaining small share, 16 gandas 1 cowrie. The total revenue payable to the Collector in respect of the estate was Rs. 8,807, 4 annas 11 gandas. Of this, Rs. 8,356, 9 annas 11 gandas represented the plaintiff's share, and Rs. 450, 11 annas was the share of Krishnaprosonno M...
Tag this Judgment!Kristomonee Dossee Vs. Denobundhoo Chowdhry
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-14-1876
Reported in: (1877)ILR2Cal153
Richard Garth, C.J.1. In this case I have the misfortune to differ in opinion from my learned colleagues. The question which we have to decide is, whether the plaintiff in this suit is barred by the judgment in a former suit. It is said that she is so barred by the second Section of the Civil Procedure Code, which enacts ' that the Civil Courts shall not take cognizance of any suit brought on a cause of action' which has been heard and determined by a Court of competent jurisdiction, in a former suit between the same parties.'2. Is then the 'cause of action' in the present suit the same cause of action which was adjudicated upon in the former suit? This depends upon what is meant by the words 'cause of action,' and I believe it has never been seriously doubted, either here or in England, that the true meaning of that expression is not the claim itself, as for instance, the money, or goods, or land, which the plaintiff seeks to recover, but the grounds upon which that claim is founded. ...
Tag this Judgment!Abdool Hamid Alias Sabhan Miah Vs. Abul Munsoor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-03-1876
Reported in: (1877)ILR2Cal98
Richard Garth, C.J.1. In this appeal it is only necessary for us to decide one of the points which have been taken by the defendants, the appellants, and that point is upon the plea of limitation.2. After stating the facts as above, the learned Chief Justice proceeded as follows:3. The plaintiff relies upon the same ground as that taken in his former suit, viz., that Shitul Chunder's purchase was made on behalf of his (the plaintiff's) co-debtors; and that the judgment-debt was consequently extinguished. He contends, therefore, that the subsequent sale was void as against the plaintiff.4. One objection to this suit, which was made in the Court below, and is now made by the defendant, the appellant, is, that it is brought to set aside a sale in execution of a decree of a Civil Court within the meaning of Clause 14 of the 2nd schedule of the present Limitation Act, and this point was argued before us yesterday.5. There are other questions in the case, and many circumstances which we shou...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›