Skip to content


Roshanulla Vs. Hazir Mahmud and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtKolkata
Decided On
Judge
Reported in18Ind.Cas.727
AppellantRoshanulla
RespondentHazir Mahmud and ors.
Excerpt:
specific relief act (i of 1877), section 9 - 'dispossession, in due course of law'--legal process which ought not to have been applied--civil procedure code (act v of 1908), order xxi, rules 95 and 96. - 1. this was a rule calling upon the opposite party to show cause why the order should not be set aside on the ground that it had not been shown that the petitioner was dispossessed in due course of law.2. on the facts of the case, it appears that the petitioner was dispossessed by a legal process but one which ought not to have been applied. the result is that the rule is made absolute and the case is remanded to the lower court to be re-tried according to law.
Judgment:

1. This was a Rule calling upon the opposite party to show cause why the order should not be set aside on the ground that it had not been shown that the petitioner was dispossessed in due course of law.

2. On the facts of the case, it appears that the petitioner was dispossessed by a legal process but one which ought not to have been applied. The result is that the Rule is made absolute and the case is remanded to the lower Court to be re-tried according to law.


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