ATULA BALA DASI Vs. NIRUPAMA DEVI
LAWS(CAL)-1951-2-22
HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
Decided on February 27,1951

ATULA BALA DASI Appellant
VERSUS
NIRUPAMA DEVI Respondents


Cited Judgements :-

RAMCHANDRA GANPATRAO HANDE ALIAS HANDEGE VS. VITHALRAO HANDE [LAWS(BOM)-2011-3-174] [REFERRED TO]
SHOILESH CHANDRA MUSTAFI VS. AMAL CHANDRA MUSTAFI [LAWS(CAL)-1957-12-15] [REFERRED TO]
KUSHESHWAR PURBEY VS. SHRI SHRI 108 RAM JANAKI [LAWS(PAT)-2011-8-80] [REFERRED TO]
J C ROY CHOWDHURY VS. KRISHNA PAPER BOARD MILLS [LAWS(CAL)-1987-5-6] [REFERRED TO]
IN THE GOODS OF: SHRI OM PRAKASH MANIYAR (DECEASED) VS. IN THE GOODS OF: SHRI OM PRAKASH MANIYAR (DECEASED) [LAWS(CAL)-2021-12-68] [REFERRED TO]
SHAMBHU SHARAN TIWARY VS. RE-ESTATE OF LATE RADHA [LAWS(PAT)-2011-9-259] [REFERRED]
SHARAD SUBRAMANYAN & ANR. VS. SOUMI MAJUMDAR & ANR. [LAWS(CAL)-2019-9-173] [REFERRED TO]
FAUZIA SULTANA VS. STATE [LAWS(DLH)-2022-10-166] [REFERRED TO]
PRIYAMBADA DEVI BIRLA VS. ARVIND KUMAR NEWAR & ORS. [LAWS(CAL)-2020-5-15] [REFERRED TO]
LAXMI HOUSING UDYOG PVT. LTD VS. SHARAD SUBRAMANYAN [LAWS(CAL)-2015-7-144] [REFERRED TO]
HARSH VARDHAN LODHA VS. AJAY KUMAR NEWAR [LAWS(CAL)-2016-5-69] [REFERRED TO]
BAIJNATH PRASAD VS. BISHWANATH PRASAD [LAWS(PAT)-2008-6-20] [REFERRED TO]
RAM SHRESHTH SINGH SON OF LATE ALAKH SINGH VS. CHULHAI SINGH SON OF LATE JANG SINGH [LAWS(PAT)-2009-11-95] [REFERRED TO]
MAHAMAYA DASSI VS. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX [LAWS(CAL)-1978-2-52] [REFERRED TO]
MAYARANI CHAKRABORTY VS. MIHIR KUMAR BHATTACHARYA [LAWS(CAL)-2011-8-76] [REFERRED TO]
AMRENDRA DHWAJ SINGH AND ANR. VS. PREM KUMAR SINGH AND ORS. [LAWS(PAT)-2012-8-128] [REFERRED TO]
PROBODH SAHU VS. SUPRAMA MAITI & ANR. [LAWS(CAL)-2019-12-196] [REFERRED TO]
IN THE GOODS OF: PRIYAMVADA DEVI BIRLA (DEC.). VS. HARSH VARDHAN LODHA [LAWS(CAL)-2020-9-45] [REFERRED TO]
MANJU MITRA & ORS. VS. ANIL KRISHNA PAUL [LAWS(CAL)-2011-11-75] [REFERRED TO]
NAILA SAMREEN SHAHAB VS. KANAN MUKHERJEE [LAWS(CAL)-2011-6-3] [REFERRED TO]
KULBIR SINGH VS. STATE [LAWS(DLH)-1993-9-30] [FOLLOWED]
PATNA HIGH COURT HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA VS. RAM KRIPAL PRASAD HONBLE JUDGES:BARIN GHOSH AND JAYANANDAN SINGH JJ. [LAWS(PAT)-2008-6-54] [REFERRED TO]
KIRAN BALA SAHU (DECEASED). VS. SUPRAMA MAITI [LAWS(CAL)-2019-12-202] [REFERRED TO]
BIRLA CORPORATION LTD. VS. ARVIND KUMAR NEWAR & ORS. [LAWS(CAL)-2020-5-22] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

R.P. Mookerjee, J. - (1.)This is an application in revision on behalf of the D. Hs. against an order passed by the Dist. J. of Birbhum staying the sale in Title Execution Case No. 7 of 1950. The opposite parties are the applicants for the grant of letters of administration in respect of a will left by one Saradindu Roy. The D. Hs. who are the petitioners before this Court, had obtained a decree against Amal, one of the sons of Saradindu. They had proceeded to execute the decree against Amal & had prayed for the sale of certain properties which had been inherited by Amal from Saradindu. Claims were filed by the wife & the daughter of Amal as also by the brother's son Amal contending that the properties which were about to be put up to sale did not belong to Amal. The claims as made were dismissed. No suit, it is stated, has yet been filed under Order XXI, Rule 63, Civil P. C. Near about the time when the claim petitions were dismissed, an application was filed by the wife & the daughter of Amal for the grant of letters of administration of a will alleged to have been left by Saradindu. Immediately after this application had been filed the said petitioners moved the probate Court for staying the sale in Title Execution Case No. 7 of 1950 which was then pending in the Court of the Subordinate Judge at Birbhum. The learned Dist. J. issued an interim order, & after hearing the D. Hs., made the order absolute on 21-9-1950. It is against this order that the said D.Hs. have obtained the present Rule from this Court.
(2.)The first question which requires consideration is whether the probate court has any jurisdiction to issue an order for stay of proceedings pending in another Court. It is contended that the jurisdiction of the probate court is a very limited one, & that Court cannot issue any order on any other court, such other court not being a court subordinate to the probate court. The proceedings before the Court of the Subordinate Judge were not also proceedings which had arisen out of the case pending before the probate court.
(3.)It is now well settled that a Court has jurisdiction to postpone the hearing of a suit which is pending before that court. The grounds for such postponement may be as under Section 10, Civil P. C., or, even when the grounds cannot be brought within the four corners of that section the Court has an inherent power of staying its own proceedings. Such inherent power to postpone the hearing of a suit, pending the decision of a selected action, may be founded on grounds of convenience. Such inherent power, is to be exercised to facilitate that real & substantial justice is done. See in this connection 'Abdul Alim v. Badaruddin Ahmed', 28 C. W. N. 295 & 'Hukum Chand v. Kamalanand Singh', 33 Cal 927 at p. 932.


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.