Skip to content


Nrisingha Chandra Pal Chaudhury and ors. Vs. Sm. Kanaklata Dasi W/O Anantapada Madak and anr. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtKolkata
Decided On
Reported inAIR1942Cal369a
AppellantNrisingha Chandra Pal Chaudhury and ors.
RespondentSm. Kanaklata Dasi W/O Anantapada Madak and anr.
Excerpt:
- .....judge has dismissed the petitioners' application for re-opening a decree under section 36, bengal money-lenders act. the only ground on which the learned judge has dismissed the application is that the application was not filed within the period of limitation prescribed by section 36, clause (1), proviso (i). it appears from the judgment of the learned judge that the learned judge has interpreted the words 'the date of the suit' in proviso (i) to mean 'the date of the application' under the bengal money-lenders act.2. we are unable to accept this interpretation of the learned judge. section 36, clause (1) contemplates a suit to which the bengal money-lenders act applied as well as a suit which may be brought by a borrower for relief under that section. the words 'the date of the suit'.....
Judgment:
ORDER

1. This is an application for revising the order of the District Judge of Nadia, dated 19th September 1941, whereby the learned Judge has dismissed the petitioners' application for re-opening a decree under Section 36, Bengal Money-lenders Act. The only ground on which the learned Judge has dismissed the application is that the application was not filed within the period of limitation prescribed by Section 36, Clause (1), proviso (i). It appears from the judgment of the learned Judge that the learned Judge has interpreted the words 'the date of the suit' in proviso (i) to mean 'the date of the application' under the Bengal Money-lenders Act.

2. We are unable to accept this interpretation of the learned Judge. Section 36, Clause (1) contemplates a suit to which the Bengal Money-lenders Act applied as well as a suit which may be brought by a borrower for relief under that section. The words 'the date of the suit' in proviso (i) must, therefore, mean the date when the suit contemplated by Section 36, Clause (1) is brought and not the date of any application by the borrower under the Bengal Money-lenders Act. The learned Judge was, therefore, wrong in holding that the petitioners' application was barred by limitation. The result, therefore, is that this rule is made absolute. The order of the learned District Judge complained of is set aside and the order of the trial Judge re-opening the decree is affirmed. The parties will bear their own costs in this Court as well as in the lower appellate Court.


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