Skip to content


Suja UddIn Vs. ReazuddIn and anr. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtKolkata
Decided On
Judge
Reported in(1900)ILR27Cal414
AppellantSuja Uddin
RespondentReazuddIn and anr.
Cases Referred and Raja v. Strinivasa
Excerpt:
appeal - order rejecting an application for restoring to the file an application to set aside a sale in execution of a decree--civil procedure code (xiv of 1882), sections 311, 588(8)--execution proceedings--dismissal for default. - rampini and wilkins, jj.1. a preliminary objection has been raised to the hearing of these two appeals. (nos. 69 and 74 of 1899), namely, that no appeals lie; and in support of this contention the case of raja pudmanund singh bahadoor v. doorga pershad doobey (1899) 4 c.w.n., 39, recently decided in this court has been cited.. we think that the facts of the present appeals are similar to the facts of that, case, and on the authority of this ruling and also of the rulings ningappa v. sangawa (1885) i.l.r., 10 bom., 433, and raja v. strinivasa (1888) i.l.r., 11 mad., 319, we dismiss these appeals with costs, which we assess at two gold mohurs in each case.
Judgment:

Rampini and Wilkins, JJ.

1. A preliminary objection has been raised to the hearing of these two appeals. (Nos. 69 and 74 of 1899), namely, that no appeals lie; and in support of this contention the case of Raja Pudmanund Singh Bahadoor v. Doorga Pershad Doobey (1899) 4 C.W.N., 39, recently decided in this Court has been cited.. We think that the facts of the present appeals are similar to the facts of that, case, and on the authority of this ruling and also of the rulings Ningappa v. Sangawa (1885) I.L.R., 10 Bom., 433, and Raja v. Strinivasa (1888) I.L.R., 11 Mad., 319, we dismiss these appeals with costs, which we assess at two gold mohurs in each case.


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