Skip to content


Kiran Chandra Dutta Roy and ors. Vs. Bijoy Chandra Basu and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtKolkata High Court
Decided On
Case NumberCivil Rule No. 97 of 1951
Judge
Reported inAIR1952Cal123
ActsDebt Law; ; Bengal Agricultural Debtors Act, 1935 - Section 37A
AppellantKiran Chandra Dutta Roy and ors.
RespondentBijoy Chandra Basu and ors.
Appellant AdvocateBankim Chandra Roy, Adv.
Respondent AdvocatePanchanan Chowdhury and ; Nirmal Chand Chowdhury, Advs.
Cases ReferredMonohardas v. Golam Rahaman
Excerpt:
- .....his order.2. the main ground urged before me for interference is that the petitioner before the learned district judge suppressed certain facts. as far as i can see, all the material facts alleged to have been suppressed are referred to in the judgment of the appellate officer, which was the subject-matter of the application for revision to the district judge. the point at issue is whether the petitioner under section 37a in a proceeding which has been going on for a number of years is now entitled to the benefit of the proposition laid down in the case of 'monohardas v. golam rahaman' air (36) 1949 cal 225. the contention before me is that the applicant under section 37a is not the full owner of the properties sold and sought to be restored. the proposition in the case cited is that,.....
Judgment:
ORDER

Roxburgh, J.

1. This is a Rule against an order of the District Judge of Burdwan passed under Section 40A of the Bengal Agricultural Debtors Act. I see not reason to interfere with his order.

2. The main ground urged before me for interference is that the petitioner before the learned District Judge suppressed certain facts. As far as I can see, all the material facts alleged to have been suppressed are referred to in the judgment of the Appellate Officer, which was the subject-matter of the application for revision to the District Judge. The point at issue is whether the petitioner under Section 37A in a proceeding which has been going on for a number of years is now entitled to the benefit of the proposition laid down in the case of 'Monohardas v. Golam Rahaman' AIR (36) 1949 Cal 225. The contention before me is that the applicant under Section 37A is not the full owner of the properties sold and sought to be restored. The proposition in the case cited is that, on certain conditions, a sharer may 'make application under Section 37A, and obtain restoration. At an early-stage of the proceedings, according to the petitioner before me, it was decided that the applicants under Section 37A should only get restoration according to their share. It is therefore urged that the matter was finally concluded in the case so far as they were concerned and they cannot get the benefit of this later decision. As I have said, the learned Judge was fully aware, I am convinced, of all the facts when he passed his order. It by no means follows that the ordinary rule as to res judicata applies in these somewhat summary and extra-judicial proceedings provided for under Section 37A. I see no reason in the circumstances to differ from the view taken by the learned District Judge. The applicants prima facie are entitled to full restoration and I see no reason why they could not obtain it.

3. The result is that the rule must be discharged. I make no order as to costs. Let the records be sent down as early as possible, Let the counter affidavit filed today be kept on the record.


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