Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 2 of 2 (0.27 seconds)
Documents citing Jagannath Motilal vs Bala Prosad Arjundas on 3 August, 1923

Mohindra Prasad vs Poddar Brothers Ltd. on 17 July, 1951

6. Mr. Hazra on behalf of the respondents contended that even if this contention was right, the order 'of the learned Master was appealable to the learned Judge in Chambers and as there was no appeal the order right or wrong became final and could not be questioned" now. Reliance was placed upon a Bench decision of this Court in 'JAGANNATH MOTILAL v. BALA PROSAD', 50 Cal. L. J. 397. In that case an order was made on February 14, 1923 ordering the plaintiff to file a further and better affidavit within ten days from the date and in default the suit would stand dismissed. This order was not complied with, but the plaintiff filed his affidavit on March 13, 1923. The defendant applied to the Court on May 14, 1923 for an order that the further and better affidavit of documents improperly filed on March 13, 1923 be taken off the file and that the suit be struck off. On May 14, 1923, the Court passed an order:
Calcutta High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Gulraj Shroff And Anr. vs Kaniram Sureka And Ors. on 2 December, 1937

The expression used by this author is "stand dismissed". There is a similar Form, No. 15 of App. K in the Annual Practice 1937 at p. 1759, where the expression used is "be dismissed". However in that case, as in the present case, the point could not and cannot be agitated because there was no appeal from the order, and all that now remains for decision is what is the effect of the order upon the suit. In that case the material words were "and it is further ordered that in default of the plaintiff firm filing such affidavit within the time aforesaid this suit do stand dismissed". The Court held that this order became on default a final order dismissing the suit.
Calcutta High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 1 - Full Document
1