MT. HAFIJAN Vs. MT. IMAMAN
LAWS(MPH)-1950-5-7
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Decided on
May 22,1950
Mt. Hafijan
Appellant
VERSUS
Mt. Imaman
Respondents
Referred Judgements :-
MAMGREY V. SUNDER [REFERRED TO]BODH NARAIN MAHTO VS. MAHABIR PD [REFERRED TO]
QASIM ALI KHAN VS. MUSAMMAT BHAGWANTA KUAR [REFERRED TO]
JOHURAN BIBI VS. HOWRAH JUTE MILLS CO LTD [REFERRED TO]
B SURENDRA NARAIN SINGH VS. RAJA LAL BAHADUR SINGH [REFERRED TO]
JUDGEMENT
Chaturvedi, J. -
(1.)THIS is a judgment -debtor's application for revising the decree passed by the District Judge, Bhind, on 14 -10 -1944.
(2.)THE material facts leading to the decree in second appeal of the District Judge mentioned above are that the judgment -debtor's objection that the execution was barred by limitation was overruled by Judicial Officer Pargana, Lahore. The petitioner then went in first appeal before the Sub -Judge and his appeal was dismissed. The petitioner then came in second appeal before the District Judge but did not produce a copy of the decree along with the memorandum of appeal. He, of course, produced a copy of the judgment. When under orders of the Court he produced a copy of the decree the appeal had become time -barred, and therefore, on this ground, the appeal was dismissed.
In this revision the learned counsel for the applicant contends that an order determining any question referred to under S. 47, Civil P.C., (Gwalior S. 234) is a decree under S. 2, Civil P.C., and therefore when an appeal is preferred against such an order it is sufficient to attach to a memorandum of appeal a copy of the order, Mr. Abdul Hafiz places reliance on a Calcutta case reported in Khirode Sundari Debi v. Janendra Nath Pal,, 6 C.W.N. 283. This case no doubt supports the contention put forward on behalf of the appellant; but in Qasimali Khan v. Mt. Bhagvanta Kuar, : 40 ALL. 12: (A.I.R. 1918 ALL. 394) it was held that even in an appeal against any order under S. 47 no valid appeal could be filed which was not accompanied by a copy of the formal order or decree the Calcutta case was referred to but was definitely dissented from.
(3.)IN , Bodh Narain Mehto v. Mahabir Prasad, : A.I.R. 1940 Pat 176: (20 P.L.T. 801) the view taken by Agarwala J. was that in an appeal from an order under S. 47 the appellant was bound to file a copy of the order specially where a copy of the judgment is already on the record. This ruling is very brief and the question does not seem to have been considered in detail with reference to specific provisions contained in the Code.
;
(2.)THE material facts leading to the decree in second appeal of the District Judge mentioned above are that the judgment -debtor's objection that the execution was barred by limitation was overruled by Judicial Officer Pargana, Lahore. The petitioner then went in first appeal before the Sub -Judge and his appeal was dismissed. The petitioner then came in second appeal before the District Judge but did not produce a copy of the decree along with the memorandum of appeal. He, of course, produced a copy of the judgment. When under orders of the Court he produced a copy of the decree the appeal had become time -barred, and therefore, on this ground, the appeal was dismissed.
In this revision the learned counsel for the applicant contends that an order determining any question referred to under S. 47, Civil P.C., (Gwalior S. 234) is a decree under S. 2, Civil P.C., and therefore when an appeal is preferred against such an order it is sufficient to attach to a memorandum of appeal a copy of the order, Mr. Abdul Hafiz places reliance on a Calcutta case reported in Khirode Sundari Debi v. Janendra Nath Pal,, 6 C.W.N. 283. This case no doubt supports the contention put forward on behalf of the appellant; but in Qasimali Khan v. Mt. Bhagvanta Kuar, : 40 ALL. 12: (A.I.R. 1918 ALL. 394) it was held that even in an appeal against any order under S. 47 no valid appeal could be filed which was not accompanied by a copy of the formal order or decree the Calcutta case was referred to but was definitely dissented from.
(3.)IN , Bodh Narain Mehto v. Mahabir Prasad, : A.I.R. 1940 Pat 176: (20 P.L.T. 801) the view taken by Agarwala J. was that in an appeal from an order under S. 47 the appellant was bound to file a copy of the order specially where a copy of the judgment is already on the record. This ruling is very brief and the question does not seem to have been considered in detail with reference to specific provisions contained in the Code.
;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.