Skip to content


Jadu Kanta Sarma and anr. Vs. Hema Kanta Goswami - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtKolkata
Decided On
Judge
Reported in36Ind.Cas.624
AppellantJadu Kanta Sarma and anr.
RespondentHema Kanta Goswami
Excerpt:
civil procedure code (act v of 1908), order xli, rule 14, order ix rule 3 - appeal notice of, to respondent--omission to specify date of hearing--ex parte judgment--re-hearing right of respondent to. - .....that the appeal be re-heard in due course of law. the costs, including the hearing fee which we assess at one gold mohur, will abide the.....
Judgment:

1. This is an appeal from an order dated the 17th September 1915 made by the Subordinate Judge of Tezpur. By this order the learned Subordinate Judge refused to set aside an ex parte decree which he had made upon an appeal preferred by the opposite party. It appears that in the notices of the appeal served upon the two petitioners the date on which the appeal was to be heard was not specified. Rule 14 of Order XLI requires that the date fixed for the hearing of an appeal should be specified in the notice served on the respondents.

2. In our opinion the learned Subordinate (Judge) was wrong in refusing to set aside the ex parte decree and re-hear the appeal. We must accordingly set aside the order appealed from and direct that the appeal be re-heard in due course of law. The costs, including the hearing fee which we assess at one gold mohur, will abide the result.


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