Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 9 of 9 (0.23 seconds)Article 182 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
Mohanlal Goenka vs Benoy Krishna Mukherjeeand Others on 9 December, 1952
"Where an order has been made by the Court which passed a decree for transfer to another Court, the decree-holder is entitled to apply for execution to the transferee Court, even before the Copy of the decree has been received by the latter from the former Court. The reason is that the order of transfer is a judicial order and therefore, takes effect from the date on which it was passed." I need not dilate further on this point, as there are pertinent observations made by the Supreme Court in Mohanlal Goenka v. Benoy Kishna Mukherjee, AIR 1953 SC 65, which are, in my opinion, material. Das, J., has observed:
Mohammad Taqi Khan vs Raja Ram And Ors. on 15 September, 1936
"............" In each one of these three cases, a learned Judge of the Court concerned has interpreted the expression 'final order' as used in sub-clause (5) of Art. 182. Limitation Act in the sense contended for by the learned counsel for the opposite party. It has been held in each one of these cases that so far as the original Court is concerned the proceedings in it terminated when once it passed an order transferring the decree to another Court and directed the issue of the necessary certificate. At that stage the final order, so far as it concerned the application for transferring the decree to another Court, is passed, learned counsel has also invited my attention to the decision of a Full Bench of this Court in the case of Mohamad Taqi Khan v. Raja Ram 1936 All LJ 1140 = AIR 1936 All 820. At p. 1140 the Full Bench has indicated the meaning of the expression "final order" in clause (5) of Art. 182. It has been made clear that the expression 'final order' does not necessarily mean the order which finally adjudicates upon the rights of the decree-holder on the one hand and the rights of the judgment - debtor on the other. At page 1149 the learned Judges have made this important observation:-
Article 136 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Ananta Kumar Shyam Roy vs Surendra Kumar Mitra on 31 March, 1947
13. Mr. Bhatt invited my attention to the decision of Calcutta High Court in Ananta Kumar Shyam Roy v. Surendra Kumar Mitra, AIR 1947 Cal 424. In para 4, at page 425, it is observed :
Amarendra Nath Mallick vs Balai Chand Ghatak on 10 February, 1936
14. Decision of the Division Bench of Calcutta High Court in Amarendra Nath Mallick v. Balai Chand Ghatak, AIR 1936 Cal 267, has also no application, as there was an application filed to the Court which passed the decree. It is observed therein :
Kesho Ram vs Mt. Suraj Balli on 8 March, 1949
In Kesho Ram v. Mt. Suraj Balli, AIR 1949 All 751, it is observed:-
1