High Courts(1907) 08 CAL CK 0004

Sukhan Singh vs Baij Nath Goenka

Calcutta High Court · Decided on 13 August 1907

CASE NUMBER
Rule No. 2360 of 1907

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

4 paragraphs · 142 words

Woodroffe, J.—It is not necessary to decide the questions that have been raised; namely, whether an appeal lies in this case or whether the Petitioner has his remedy by way of revision, The rule must be discharged upon the merits. The petition was rejected on the ground that the Petitioner was not a person entitled to apply under BOO. 331, C.P.C, which contemplates an application by the decree-holder.

2.

I think that the contention is Bound that this section is limited to an application by the decree-holder. The Appellant has not been actually dispossessed, so as to enable him to come under sec. 332, C.P.C. It has further been stated that the execution proceedings have been struck off and that the matter is now really one relating to costs. The rule is discharged with costs, two gold mohurs.

Coxe, J.

I agree.