Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 2 of 2 (0.14 seconds)
Ghazidin vs Fakir Bakhsh on 7 August, 1884 cites

Kristomohiny Dossee vs Bama Churn Nag Chowdry And Ors. on 29 August, 1881

6. We have, therefore, no hesitation in holding that all orders staying execution of decrees, whether passed by the Court which passed the decree, or by the Court to which it is sent for execution, are "questions arising between the parties to the suit in which the decree was passed, and relating to the execution" thereof, within the meaning of Section 244(c), and, as such, appealable, irrespective of the provisions of Section 588 of the Civil Procedure Code. Such was the view taken by the Calcutta High Court in Kristomohiny Dossee v. Bama Churn Nag Choudhry I.L.R. 7 Cal.
Calcutta High Court Cites 0 - Cited by 3 - Full Document

Luchmeeput Singh vs Sita Nath Doss on 8 March, 1882

733 in connection with an order staying execution under Section 243; and again in Luchmeeput Singh v. Sita Nath Doss I.L.R. 8 Cal. 477 which was an appeal from an order made by the Court which passed the decree, and in which the execution was pending, requiring the decree-holder to give security under the provisions of Section 546 of the Civil Procedure Code. It is hardly necessary to add that the ratio decidendi of these two rulings is equally applicable to a case like the present, wherein the orders under appeal purport to have been made under Section 545 of the Code.
Calcutta High Court Cites 1 - Cited by 3 - Full Document
1