High CourtsFull Bench(1934) 02 CAL CK 0017

Tarak Gobinda Choudhury vs Tara Gobinda Choudhury and Others

Calcutta High Court · Decided on 19 February 1934 · Citation: AIR 1934 Cal 566

HON’BLE JUDGES
M.C.Ghose, J · Lort. Williams, J · Lord Williams, J

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

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

Loading membership options…

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

3 paragraphs · 227 words

Lort. Williams, J.—This is a reference purporting to be Under Order 46, Rule 1, Civil P. C. That order provides that where, before or on the hearing of a suit or an appeal in which the decree is not subject to appeal any question of law arises on which doubt is entertained, a Court may draw up a statement of facts on any point of doubt arising and refer it for decision to the High Court. This reference arises out of an application u/s 93, Ben. Ten. Act, for appointment of a common manager. Although it is true, as the learned Judge states in his letter of reference, that the CPC applies to proceedings u/s 93, Ben. Ten. Act, yet it is clear that the proceedings under that section do no amount to a suit, but are in the nature of an application, as has been pointed out by the learned advocate. In every suit there must be a plaint and there must be a decree, and both these are absent in an application u/s 93, Ben. Ten. Act. It is clear therefore that the point which has given difficulty to the learned Judge has not arisen out of a suit, within the meaning of Order 46, Rule 1 of the Code and consequently, the reference is not competent and must be rejected.

M.C.Ghose, J.

I agree.