Skip to content

Panch Duar Thakur and anr. Vs. Mani Raut - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
Decided On
Reported in17Ind.Cas.88
AppellantPanch Duar Thakur and anr.
RespondentMani Raut
Cases ReferredDeoki Nandan Singh v. Bansi Singh
appeal - order determining valuation of immoveable property to he entered in sale proclamation, if appealable--civil procedure code (act v of 1903), sections 2 and 47, order xxi, rule 66. - .....objection must prevail, and the appeal must be dismissed with coats, hearing-fee three gold.....

1. This is an appeal from an order, and it is objected on the part of the respondent that no appeal lies. The point in dispute in one that arises under Order XXI, Rule 66, and the only point we have to consider is whether a determination of a matter under that rule is a decree and as such within Section 47 and so appealable. There are a number of decisions on the old Code, which favour the view that an appeal lies. On the new Code, however, there is one decision which has been brought to our notice, that is, the decision of Mr. Justice Mookerjee in Deoki Nandan Singh v. Bansi Singh 16 C.W.N. 124 : 14 C.L.J. 35 : 10 Ind. Cas. 371. I am in complete agreement with Mr. Justice Mookerjee's view of this matter, and, having regard to the new definition of the word 'decree' in Section 2, Sub-section (2) of the Code, I do not feel that it is necessary to go back to the earlier decisions which were based on a different definition.

2. The result is that, in my opinion, the preliminary objection must prevail, and the appeal must be dismissed with coats, hearing-fee three gold mohurs.

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