Skip to content


Ahmed Musaji Saleji Vs. Mamooji Musaji and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtKolkata
Decided On
Judge
Reported in31Ind.Cas.315
AppellantAhmed Musaji Saleji
RespondentMamooji Musaji and ors.
Excerpt:
appeal - discretion--appellate court, power of, to interfere with lower court's discretion. - .....the defendants is clearly-defined by an order of the 11th may 1915, which fixed certain dates for payment of instalments of the considerable sum of money which their lordships of the privy council directed to be paid into court. instead of imposing upon the defendants the obligation, which was strictly theirs, of paying the whole sum at once, a provision was made for this payment by instalments. the matter came before the court of appeal not by way of appeal from that order, but from an order for enforcement of payment. as i was a member of the court of appeal, i think i can say that 1 doubt the wisdom of the indulgence that was then granted by the court. it was an indulgence which was intended to be used properly and we did not anticipate that it would be abused.3. assuming an appeal.....
Judgment:

Lawrence Jenkins, C.J.

1. We certainly do not decide that there is any right of appeal in this case. But even if there were such a right We would decline to interfere.

2. The obligation of the defendants is clearly-defined by an order of the 11th May 1915, which fixed certain dates for payment of instalments of the considerable sum of money which their Lordships of the Privy Council directed to be paid into Court. Instead of imposing upon the defendants the obligation, which was strictly theirs, of paying the whole sum at once, a provision was made for this payment by instalments. The matter came before the Court of Appeal not by way of appeal from that order, but from an order for enforcement of payment. As I was a member of the Court of Appeal, I think I can say that 1 doubt the wisdom of the indulgence that was then granted by the Court. It was an indulgence which was intended to be used properly and we did not anticipate that it would be abused.

3. Assuming an appeal lies, did Mr. Justice Greaves err in such a way as to justify our interference in appeal when he refused to grant time beyond that limited by the order of the 11th May 1915 as modified by the order of the Court of Appeal in respect of the July instalment? The learned Judge has dealt with the matter most carefully and with complete knowledge of the facts, for it is not the first application of the kind that has come before him. In the exercise of the discretion he has considered that further time should not be allowed. The Court of Appeal is at all times slow to interfere with the exercise of a discretion and on that ground, it would be enough to say that we refuse to interfere. But apart from that, the presentation of the case by Mr. Bagram, who I am sure, has told all that, could be said on, behalf of his client, has failed to convince me that there is anything in the merits that would justify the further indulgence that has been sought. Therefore, in my opinion, this appeal should be dismissed with costs.

4. Each of the four sets of respondents will get his costs of this appeal.

Mookerjee, J

5. I agree.

Richardson, J.

6. I agree.


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