Nripendranath Chatterjee and Others vs Jhumak Mander and Others

This application is directed against the order of the learned Registrar, dated the 16th of February 1923, declining to print certain papers in the paper-book. The petition upon which the application was made admitted that the "papers were not formally exhibited though the Court was requested to do so." It sets out the fact that, though these papers were not exhibited, the Court treated the papers as part of the record and has even mentioned those papers in its judgment. On these facts it was quite impossible for the learned Registrar to accede to the application of the applicant. But it now appears that the papers, which the petitioners want to be printed in the paper-book are, first, the decree passed by the Court and, secondly, the agreement between the parties upon which the decree was passed and which forms part of the decree. The appeal is from an order of the learned Subordinate Judge refusing to execute the decree. It is obvious that the decree is part of the record and it was not necessary for the applicant to tender the decree formally in evidence. The whole question in appeal will be whether the decree is capable of execution. That is the question which the learned Subordinate Judge has decided and the appellant will contend in appeal that the decree is in fact capable of execution.

These facts were not placed before the learned Registrar and the result was that the learned Registrar refused the application of the applicant.

We direct that the decree be printed in the paper-book. As regards the other papers, if they form part of the decree, then they will be printed; if not, then they will not be printed.