Jahur Mia And Ors. vs Abdul Gaffur Mia on 26 March, 1941
1. This is a rule calling upon the opposite party to show cause why an order of the Subordinate Judge refusing to hear an appeal in view of Section 3, Bengal Non-Agricultural Tenancy Act, should not be set aside. The rule was argued on grounds Nos. 2 and 3 attached to the petition. The former raises the question whether the Act applies to appeals and the latter whether the ease comes within Section 3 at all. I will deal with the former point first. This question will only arise in the case of appeals which were pending at the time when the Act came into force or filed subsequently; that is to say, in all such cases the actual decree must have been made in the first Court before the Act came into force. It will therefore only affect a comparatively small number of cases. The point has already been considered by a Division Bench of this Court in Jahur Mia v. Abdul Gaffur . Unfortunately, the learned Judges differed. Biswas J. discussed the point at length and came to the conclusion that the words "suit" or a "proceeding" in Section 3 do not include an appeal. Mukherjea J. said that he was not prepared to go so far as to say that the expression "proceeding" is not sufficiently wide to include an appeal.