Kolkata Court December 1881 Judgments
SumbhudIn Pattuck Vs. Lutful Huq
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-08-1881
Reported in: (1882)ILR8Cal248
Morris, J.1. We affirm the order of the lower Court allowing execution to proceed, though upon grounds different from those on which the Judge bases his order. The facts of the case are as follow: A decree was passed on the 7th February 1876. The decree-holder applied for execution on the 31st May following. On the 15th November of that year, the judgment-debtor made an application to revive the suit, on the ground that he had no notice of it. This application was rejected on the 15th November 1876, and an appeal by the judgment-debtor against this order was dismissed on the 19th December 1877. But previously to this, that is, upon the entertainment of the application to revive the suit, the Court directed the execution-proceedings to be stayed; and on the 21st of February 1877,--that is, before the final order on appeal, on the application to revive the suit, was passed,--the Court, of its own motion, struck the execution-case off its file. It thus happens that the judgment-creditor d...
Tag this Judgment!Ratan Krishen Poddar Vs. Raghoo Nath Shaha and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-08-1881
Reported in: (1882)ILR8Cal287
Richard Garth, C.J.1. In this case, I think that the Munsif has taken a correct view of both points.2. The notice-clause in Section 21 of Act XI of 1865 appears to me to be applicable only to those cases where a new trial cannot be applied for within seven days after the judgment, in consequence of there being no sitting of the Court. Where the application itself is made within seven days, the notice appears quite unnecessary. Then again, if the grounds upon which the new trial is moved are proper grounds for granting a review, I agree with the Munsif that the plaintiff has a right to apply under Section 623 of the Civil Procedure Code without resorting to the Act of 1865. In that case no notice would be required....
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Giridhari Mondul and anr., Vs. Uchit Jha
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-07-1881
Reported in: (1882)ILR8Cal435
Field, J.1. The facts of this case are as follows: On the morning of the 25th May last, Mr. Pratt, the Joint Magistrate of Purneah, was riding along in a portion of the district, when one Chumroo Mondul came to him, and complained that a dacoity had been committed on the previous night in the house of his brother, Giridhari Mondul. Mr. Pratt immediately proceeded to the spot, and made, what we must assume to be, a preliminary enquiry under the provisions of Section 115 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, or what is commonly called a local investigation, conducted, not in his judicial capacity as Joint Magistrate, but in his administrative or executive capacity as a Police-officer. To this conclusion we are led by several facts. In the first place, there is no record of the examination of witnesses taken down in the manner directed by the Code of Criminal Procedure for proceedings of a judicial nature. In the second place, Mr. Pratt did not proceed to dispose definitively of the case of ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›