Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 7 of 7 (0.75 seconds)Section 146 in The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [Entire Act]
The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
Article 227 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Article 164 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Sushil Chandra Guha And Anr. vs Gouri Sundari Devi on 3 July, 1925
(6) It has been urged that the respondents had succeeded to the rights of Harbans Kaur and so they must be regarded as defendants within the meaning of Order 9 Rule 13 Civil Procedure Code . Factually the position is that the respondents became the owner of the property subsequent to the pasting of the ex parte order sought to be set aside. The respondents' application under Order I Rule 10, Order 22 Rule 10 Cpc etc. stands dismissed by an order of this Court. They cannot, therefore, even plead that they are the legal representatives of or entitled lo be substituted in place of the original defendant or added as a party to the original proceedings. If that be the position then the respondents are outsiders to the proceedings in which ex parte order was made and may not have locus standi to have the order set aside. The proposition of law which I have enunciated hereinabove finds support from a Bench decision of the Calcutta High Court in Susil Chandra Guha and another v. Gouri Sundari Devi and others (A. I .R. 1926 Calcutta 1015) (1). In that case it was held that the puisne mortgagee not a party to a suit cannot be allowed to apply for setting aside the ex parte decree either under Order 9 Rule 13 or under Section 146 Civil Procedure Code . If this is the correct law, it may have to be held that an outsider like the respondents cannot move an application under Order 9 Rule 13 Civil Procedure Code . The Additional Rent Controller in his impugned order could not take up the position that he has in paragraph 12 of the impugned order which has been quoted above. The decision of the Calcutta High Court referred to earlier was brought to the notice of the Additional Rent Controller but he has disagreed with that interpretation. He has rather relied on two other decisions, one of the Patna High Court and the other of the Andhra Pradesh High Court. In my view the reading of these two decisions by the Additional Rent Controller is not tenable.
Dulhin Suga Kuer And Anr. vs Deorani Kuer And Ors. on 1 August, 1951
(7) In the case of Pulhin Suga Kuer and another v Deorani Kuer and others ( relied on by the Additional Rent Controller, the application in question was moved by the defendant and not the transferee. It was a case under section 146 Cpc and not under Order 9 Rule 13 Civil Procedure Code . Section 146 Civil Procedure Code speaks of claiming "under a party" and not "through a party". I do not understand how any reliance on this decision could be placed by the Additional Rent Controller.
1