Skip to content


Corporation of Calcutta Vs. Dulal Chandra Pramanik and anr. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectLimitation
CourtKolkata
Decided On
Reported inAIR1939Cal470
AppellantCorporation of Calcutta
RespondentDulal Chandra Pramanik and anr.
Excerpt:
- .....in that act. the case before the learned magistrate was an application under section 364(1), calcutta municipal act of 1923 for the removal of a masonry platform alleged to be causing obstruction on ran nath pal road. the question, as framed, therefore is whether article 146-a, schedule 1, limitation act, applies to an application under section 364(1), calcutta municipal act of 1923. such an application is plainly not a suit and therefore the aforesaid article, which applies only to suits cannot apply to such an application. this is conceded by both parties. it may be that the question which the learned magistrate meant to refer to this court was rather different from the question which he has actually formulated, four we can only answer the question actually formulated.bartley,.....
Judgment:

Rau, J.

1. This is a reference by the Presidency and Municipal Magistrate of Calcutta under Section 432, Criminal P.C. The question of law on which he seeks the opinion of this Court is whether 'Article 146(a), Schedule 1, Limitation Act, applies to this case.' Presumably the reference is to Article 146-A, for there is no such Article as 146(a) in that Act. The case before the learned Magistrate was an application under Section 364(1), Calcutta Municipal Act of 1923 for the removal of a masonry platform alleged to be causing obstruction on Ran Nath Pal Road. The question, as framed, therefore is whether Article 146-A, Schedule 1, Limitation Act, applies to an application under Section 364(1), Calcutta Municipal Act of 1923. Such an application is plainly not a suit and therefore the aforesaid Article, which applies only to suits cannot apply to such an application. This is conceded by both parties. It may be that the question which the learned Magistrate meant to refer to this Court was rather different from the question which he has actually formulated, four we can only answer the question actually formulated.

Bartley, J.

2. I agree.


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