Skip to content


Pramotha Nath Roy Choudhry and anr. Vs. Rani Dinomoni Choudhurani - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtKolkata
Decided On
Judge
Reported in32Ind.Cas.858
AppellantPramotha Nath Roy Choudhry and anr.
RespondentRani Dinomoni Choudhurani
Excerpt:
civil procedure code (act v of 1908), order xxii, rule 10, order xliii, rule 1, clause (1) - continuance of suit by plaintiff after devolution of interest--no application--appeal, maintainability of. - .....the father of the son she had adopted pending the suit. we have nothing to do with the merits of the question that arises upon the adoption or agreement. all that we have to see in this case is whether the order was one under order xxii, rule 10. we think it was not and, therefore, the appeal to the district judge did not lie and this rule is discharged with costs, hearing fee five gold mohurs.
Judgment:

1. Order XXII, Rule 10, of the Civil Procedure Code has application to cases in which during the pendency of a suit, the interest is assigned, created or devolves and an application is made for the leave of the Court for the continuance of the suit in favour of or against a person in whose favour such an assignment, creation or devolution has operated. Against the order made by the Court on such application there is an appeal provided by Order XLIII, Rule 1, Clause (1). In this case the plaintiff did not make any application for being allowed to continue the suit in consequence of any assignment, creation or devolution of interest in her favour. She contests the suit on the ground that there was no devolution of any interest, but that the interest which she possessed had been maintained in consequence of a certain agreement with the father of the son she had adopted pending the suit. We have nothing to do with the merits of the question that arises upon the adoption or agreement. All that we have to see in this case is whether the order was one under Order XXII, Rule 10. We think it was not and, therefore, the appeal to the District Judge did not lie and this Rule is discharged with costs, hearing fee five gold mohurs.


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