Skip to content


Trailokya Nath Roy Chowdhury Vs. Durga Nath Bhattacharjya - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtKolkata
Decided On
Judge
Reported in46Ind.Cas.686
AppellantTrailokya Nath Roy Chowdhury
RespondentDurga Nath Bhattacharjya
Excerpt:
bengal tenancy act (viii b.c. of 1885), section 98, district judge, power of, under - limitation question of, whether can arise in suit for arrears of pay brought on basis of district judge's order directing payment. - .....the decision of the munsif of the same place. the suit was brought by the plaintiff who was a common manager appointed by the district judge under the provisions of section 95 of the bengal tenancy act to recover arrears of pay from the 15th may 1910 when he entered into service down to the 19th september of the same year when he made over charge to his successor. the only question raised in this appeal is whether the suit is barred by limitation. the learned judge of the lower appellate court, in my opinion, quite rightly held that no question of limitation arose in the case at all. the district judge under section 98 of the bengal tenancy act has absolute control over matters like this. under the terms of the section, he has ample power to pass orders with respect to the.....
Judgment:

Fletcher, J.

1. This is an appeal by the defendant against the decision of the learned Officiating District Judge of Commilla, dated the 23rd September 1915, affirming the decision of the Munsif of the same place. The suit was brought by the plaintiff who was a common manager appointed by the District Judge under the provisions of Section 95 of the Bengal Tenancy Act to recover arrears of pay from the 15th May 1910 when he entered into service down to the 19th September of the same year when he made over charge to his successor. The only question raised in this appeal is whether the suit is barred by limitation. The learned Judge of the lower Appellate Court, in my opinion, quite rightly held that no question of limitation arose in the case at all. The District Judge under Section 98 of the Bengal Tenancy Act has absolute control over matters like this. Under the terms of the section, he has ample power to pass orders with respect to the remuneration of the common manager. Now what was done in this case was that on the 26th July 1913, the District Judge passed an order that the plaintiff was to be paid what was found due to him. The District Judge had ample jurisdiction to make that order under the powers conferred by Section 98 of the Bengal Tenancy Act. Having made that order, it was the duty of the person who received that order--the present common manager who had to obey the order of the District Judge, under whose control he was--to comply with the terms of that order. That order not having been complied with, the plaintiff brought the present suit. No question of limitation arises in this case. The reason why the suit was resisted is not far to seek and that is this: The present common manager who is also under the control of the District Judge apparently thought for some reason that he would be accountable to the estate if the plaintiff's suit proved successful. The defendant had no ground to resist the claim of the plaintiff for arrears of his pay. The present appeal fails and is dismissed with costs.

Smither, J.

2. I agree.


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