Skip to content


Maharaja Sashi Kanta Acharjee Bahadur Vs. Fooljan Bewa and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtKolkata
Decided On
Judge
Reported inAIR1926Cal1184,96Ind.Cas.567
AppellantMaharaja Sashi Kanta Acharjee Bahadur
RespondentFooljan Bewa and ors.
Cases ReferredOf Panch Duar Thakur v. Mani Raut
Excerpt:
civil procedure code act v of 1908), order xxi, rule 66 - appeal. - .....who appears for the appellant, has attempted to distinguish this case on the ground that in the present appeal a question of service of notice under order xxi, rule 66, c.p.c. was determined, and that, therefore, this must be considered as an order determining a question which arises under order xxi, rule 66. admitting for the sake of, argument that this is correct, there is no appeal against an order, determining a question under order xxi, rule 66, c.p.c. see the case of deoki nandan singh v. bansi singh 10 ind. cas. 371 : 16 c.w.n. 124 : 14 c.l.j. 35 which is followed in the case of panch duar thakur v. mani raut 17 ind. cas. 88 : 16 c.w.n. 970.2. the appeal is, therefore, dismissed as incompetent. the respondents will get their costs. hearing fee one goldmohur.3. there is an.....
Judgment:

Cuming, J.

1. A preliminary objection is raised to this case that no appeal lies Mr. Roy, who appears for the appellant, has attempted to distinguish this case on the ground that in the present appeal a question of service of notice under Order XXI, Rule 66, C.P.C. was determined, and that, therefore, this must be considered as an order determining a question which arises under Order XXI, Rule 66. Admitting for the sake of, argument that this is correct, there is no appeal against an order, determining a question under Order XXI, Rule 66, C.P.C. See the case of Deoki Nandan Singh v. Bansi Singh 10 Ind. Cas. 371 : 16 C.W.N. 124 : 14 C.L.J. 35 which is followed in the case Of Panch Duar Thakur v. Mani Raut 17 Ind. Cas. 88 : 16 C.W.N. 970.

2. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed as incompetent. The respondents will get their costs. Hearing fee one goldmohur.

3. There is an application in the alternative in connection with this appeal. After considering all the circumstances in the case we are not prepared to grant a Rule in the present case. No doubt the learned Judge was wrong in his statement of the Law of Limitation as applicable to the present case. The learned Judge's attention is drawn to the provisions of Section 18 of the Limitation Act. But in view of the fact that the lands valued at Rs. 2,800 were sold away for Rs. 247-2-3, we do not think that this is a case in which we shall interfere in revision and grant a Rule. The application is, therefore, rejected.

Ghose, J.

4. I agree.


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