Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 8 of 8 (0.19 seconds)Balmer Lawrie And Co. vs Jadunath Banerjee on 6 April, 1914
14. The first point for consideration, therefore, is whether an appeal lay to the District Judge against the order of the Subordinate Judge. Now, an order under Section 73, Civil Procedure Code, is not appealable unless it also comes under Section 47, Civil Procedure Code, and satisfies all the requirements thereof: Balmer Lawrie & Co. v. Jadunath Banerjee (1914) I.L.R. 42 Calc. 1. In order to be appealable, the order must, therefore, decide a question arising between the decree-holder Sitaram Marwari on the one hand and the judgment-debtors Jadab Chandra Ganguly and Anil Kumar Hazra on the other. In determining whether the order passed by the learned Subordinate Judge fulfilled these tests, the cases cited at the bar do not afford us any real assistance.
Section 47 in The Indian Contract Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
The Indian Contract Act, 1872
Section 73 in The Indian Contract Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
Kumara Venkata Perumal Raja Bahadur ... vs Velayuda Reddi And Ors. on 15 April, 1914
In cases where, as between the parties to the suit, a question relating to the execution, satisfaction or discharge of the decree passed therein has been decided by the order for rateable distribution, it has always been held that an appeal lies: Venkata Perumal v. Venkata Reddi (1915) I.L.R. 39 Mad.
Sorabji Coovarji vs Kala Raghunath on 11 September, 1911
570, Sorabji Coovarji v. Kala Baghunath (1911) I.L.R. 36 Bom. 156.
Jagadish Chandra Shaha vs Kripa Nath Shaha on 10 August, 1908
In Jagadish Chandra Shaha v. Kripa Nath Shaha (1908) I.L.R. 36 Calc. 130, the petitioner had a decree against certain judgment-debtors, the opposite party had a decree against certain judgment-debtors who were not exactly identical with the former set of judgment-debtors, the opposite party applied for rateable distribution, the application was refused by the Court of first instance; the opposite party appealed and an order for rateable distribution was passed by the Appellate Court. The petitioners then appealed to this Court and it was held that the order of the Court of first instance refusing rateable distribution did not come under Section 244 of the old Code of Civil Procedure and therefore no appeal lay from it. This presumably was on the ground that there was no determination on any question relating to the execution, satisfaction or discharge of the decree which was under execution as between the parties to the suit in which it had been passed and the order only purported to decide a contest between two rival decree-holders.
1