Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 6 of 6 (0.64 seconds)
Bysani Kamalamma vs Syed Ismail Ispahani E. Venkata Sastri on 16 February, 1951 cites

Virjibun Dass Moolji vs Bissesswar Lal Hargobind And Ors. on 12 May, 1920

Now, the application of Order 37, Rule 4 has not been specifically excluded by the Code itself. Order 49, Rule 3 of the Code does not mention Order 37, Rule 4 among the rules declared not applicable to the Original Side. The argument is that it follows that it is applicable to the Original Side. For a general application of the provisions in the Code to the Original Side reliance was placed on the decision in 'Ashutosh v. Sudhangabhushan Mukherjj', (58 Cal 510), which held that Order 21, Rule 89 of the Code applied to a sale under a mortgage in a suit filed on the Original Side of the Calcutta H. C. (Vide also 'Virjivan Das Moolji v. Biseswar Lal Hargobind", (48 Cal 69)).
Calcutta High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 18 - Full Document

Ashutosh Basu vs Sudhangshubhushan Mukherji on 16 June, 1930

Now, the application of Order 37, Rule 4 has not been specifically excluded by the Code itself. Order 49, Rule 3 of the Code does not mention Order 37, Rule 4 among the rules declared not applicable to the Original Side. The argument is that it follows that it is applicable to the Original Side. For a general application of the provisions in the Code to the Original Side reliance was placed on the decision in 'Ashutosh v. Sudhangabhushan Mukherjj', (58 Cal 510), which held that Order 21, Rule 89 of the Code applied to a sale under a mortgage in a suit filed on the Original Side of the Calcutta H. C. (Vide also 'Virjivan Das Moolji v. Biseswar Lal Hargobind", (48 Cal 69)).
Calcutta High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 3 - Full Document
1