Skip to content


Fazal HusaIn Vs. Fazaluddin - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtAllahabad
Decided On
Reported inAIR1924All291
AppellantFazal Husain
RespondentFazaluddin
Excerpt:
.....board being covered under rule 2 (f) of the cantonment fund servants rules, 1937 can file appeal under rules 13, 14 and 15 to authorities provided therein against any order imposing any penalties etc. [deolali cantonment board v usha devidas dongre, 1993 mah. lj 74; 1993 lab ic 1858 overruled]. -- maharashtra employees of private schools (conditions of service) regulations act, 1978 [act no. 3/1978]. sections 9 & 2(21): jurisdiction of school tribunal whether a school run by cantonment board is not a recognised school within the meaning of section 2(21)? - held, the act is enacted to regulate recruitments and conditions of employees in certain private schools and provisions of the act shall apply to all private schools in the state whether receiving any grant-in-aid from the..........he had come after the expiry of the period fixed and he made an application for extension of the time of payment. the learned munsif held that the decree became final at the earliest on the 7th of june 1924, when one month's time allowed for appeal expired and that, therefore, (reckoning two months from the 7th of june 1924) the deposit was in time. on behalf of the vendee the present petition has been made and it is urged that as there was no appeal whatsoever, the decree became final at the date it was passed and that the two months' time should have been reckoned from the 7th of may 1924, and not from the 6th of june 1924. no authority has been produced in support of the applicant's contention. on a simple construction of the language of the decree the plaintiff could wait to see.....
Judgment:

Mukerji, J.

1. Nobody has appeared to oppose this application in revision. The suit out of which this application has arisen was a pre-emption suit and the decree was made by a Munsif on the 7th of May 1924 in favour of the plaintiff. The order was that the purchase-money, a sum of Rs. 50 was to be paid within two months of the decision of the Court becoming final. The purchase-money was not paid till the 26th of July 1924. The plaintiff apprehended that he had come after the expiry of the period fixed and he made an application for extension of the time of payment. The learned Munsif held that the decree became final at the earliest on the 7th of June 1924, when one month's time allowed for appeal expired and that, therefore, (reckoning two months from the 7th of June 1924) the deposit was in time. On behalf of the vendee the present petition has been made and it is urged that as there was no appeal whatsoever, the decree became final at the date it was passed and that the two months' time should have been reckoned from the 7th of May 1924, and not from the 6th of June 1924. No authority has been produced in support of the applicant's contention. On a simple construction of the language of the decree the plaintiff could wait to see whether an appeal was filed or not and after seeing that no appeal was filed he could set about to procure the money for payment. In the ease of Gopal Das v. Mammon Kunwar (1908) 5 A.L.J. 136, it was held that where there was an appellate decree but there was no second appeal, the decree became final on the expiry of time for filling the second appeal. The principle applies in this case and the payment was within time. The petition is rejected but without costs as there is nobody to contest the petition.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //