Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 5 of 5 (0.24 seconds)

Promotha Nath Mitra vs Rakhal Das Addy And Anr. on 17 January, 1910

7. The third point which requires consideration is as to the competency of this Court to set aside the order of the Court below in the exercise of its revisional jurisdiction. It has been suggested that in the case of Rabbaba Khanum v. Noorjehan Begum 13 C. 90, it was ruled by this Court that when an order has been made by a subordinate Court striking out the name of a person from the record s having been improperly joined, the. case oes not fall within the scope of Section 622 of the Code of 1882.
Calcutta High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 13 - Full Document

Khettramoni Dasi vs Shyama Churn Kundu And Ors. on 17 January, 1894

The learned pleader for the opposite party has relied upon the case of Rabbaba Khanum v. Noorjehan Begum I.L.R. 13 Cal. 90, but we are of opinion that the circumstances of that case were very different from those in the case before us. In the present case it appears that the widow of the deceased, Nistarini Dasi, in the first instance opposed the grant of the probate, but he subsequently applied to withdraw her objections, and after that the appellant and petitioner before us, Khettramoni Dasi, who is the daughter of the deceased, applied that she might be made a party in order to contest the grant of probate. On the 8th of March 1893 the District Judge made this order: (reads order ante p. 540). The same day that this order was made the case was heard, and it was heard as an unopposed case.
Calcutta High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 10 - Full Document
1