Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 8 of 8 (0.38 seconds)The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
Section 16 in The Transfer Of Property Act, 1882 [Entire Act]
Section 20 in The Transfer Of Property Act, 1882 [Entire Act]
Anath Bandhu Deb vs Dominion Of India on 11 July, 1955
I should like in this connection to refer to the decision of Mukharji, J., in Anath Bandhu Dev v. The Dominion of India, , for the proposition that where a suit has been filed with leave under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent it is always open to the court to find that the court has no jurisdiction to try the suit and that leave was wrongly given. I respectrully agree with Mukharji, J., that where the suit has been instituted with leave under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent the court can always come to the conclusion that leave was wrongly given and that the court has no jurisdiction.
The Transfer Of Property Act, 1882
Section 17 in The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [Entire Act]
Chittaranjan Mukherji vs Barhoo Mahto on 5 May, 1950
29. The other question which was canvassed by counsel for the plaintiff was that by reason of an interlocutory order having been made in this suit end also by reason of the fact that the defendant did not make an application for revocation of leave the defendant should not be allowed to urge the plea of jurisdiction at this stage. Reliance was placed on the decision of Supreme Court in Chittaranjan Mukheriee v. Barhoo Matho, . That was an action for dissolution of partnership. The suit was filed with leave under Clause 12. An application for revocation was made. The application was refused. An appeal was preferred. The appeal court was pleased to revoke leave. Thereafter an appeal was preferred to the Supreme- Court and the appeal was allowed. It was alleged in the suit that the partnership was entered into orally at Calcutta and there was confirmation of the same by the defendant by a letter dated 14-12-1944 addressed to the plaintiff at Calcutta. That was part of the cause of action upon which leave under Clause 12 was granted. The defendant denied the genuineness of the letter and stated that the partnership was executed in Bihar. On these allegations an application for revocation of leave was made. The plaintiff made an application for the appointment of Receiver, and the application was dismissed. Thereafter the defendant made the application for revocation of leave. The trial court held that the defendant allowed the proceedings to continue involving expenses and it was too late to make an order for revocation. The appeal court took a contrary view. The Supreme Court took into consideration the fact that even when the defendant made the application for revocation he made no attempt to get further proceedings in the suit stayed. On the contrary the defendant himself applied for discovery and inspection of the plaintiffs documents and obtained an order in that behalf. Under those circumstances the Supreme Court came to the conclusion that the defendant made use of the existence of the suit to obtain interlocutory reliefs to his own advantage and therefore the application for revocation of leave was refused. In the instant case the defendant has not made use of the existence of the suit in any manner. It is true that there has been an interlocutory order for appointment of Receiver but that order was at the instance of the plaintiff and the defendant consented to the same. It would be wrong to hold that Court has jurisdiction to try a suit for land out side the jurisdiction just because there has been no application for revocation.
1