Skip to content


Sukhlal Chundermull Vs. Eastern Bank Ltd. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtKolkata
Decided On
Judge
Reported inAIR1915Cal771(1),(1915)ILR42Cal735,31Ind.Cas.238
AppellantSukhlal Chundermull
RespondentEastern Bank Ltd.
Cases ReferredSonbai v. Ahmedbhai Habibhai
Excerpt:
civil procedure code (act v of 1908), order xxxvii - order to furnish security--letters patent, clause 15--appeal. - .....the decisions of this court rest upon what was said by sir richard couch in justices of the peace for calcutta v. oriental gas co. 8 b.l.r. 433 17 w.r. 364. in this case there is not even an appeal allowed under the code, so that it cannot be suggested, if the order made been had in a mofussil court, that an appeal would have lain under order xli. but that perhaps is not so material here, as it would be in bombay where it would possibly have been regarded as decisive of the question against the appellant: sonbai v. ahmedbhai habibhai 9 b.h.c.r. 398.2. we must, therefore, dismiss this application with costs.woodroffe, j.3. i agree.
Judgment:

Lawrence Jenkins, C.J.

1. According to a course or decisions in this Court, the order complained of is not a 'judgment' from which an appeal lies under the Letters Patent. Reference has been made to a number of Madras authorities, which are entitled to every respect but which we cannot follow in preference to the course of decisions in this Court. It has always been recognised that the Madras High Court has taken a somewhat broader view of Clause 15 of the Charter than has prevailed here. The decisions of this Court rest upon what was said by Sir Richard Couch in Justices of the Peace for Calcutta v. Oriental Gas Co. 8 B.L.R. 433 17 W.R. 364. In this case there is not even an appeal allowed under the Code, so that it cannot be suggested, if the order made been had in a Mofussil Court, that an appeal would have lain under Order XLI. But that perhaps is not so material here, as it would be in Bombay where it would possibly have been regarded as decisive of the question against the appellant: Sonbai v. Ahmedbhai Habibhai 9 B.H.C.R. 398.

2. We must, therefore, dismiss this application with costs.

Woodroffe, J.

3. I agree.


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