DINO NATH SANYAL Vs. UMAKANTA ROY
DINO NATH SANYAL
Click here to view full judgement.
(1.) This is a second appeal against an order under Section 312, Civil P. C., setting aside a sale.
(2.) A preliminary objection has been taken that no second appeal lies.
(3.) From the final clause of Section 588 this would appear to be correct,and the cases of Nana Kumar Roy V/s. Golam Chunder Dey (1891) I.L.R. 18 Cal. 422 Aubhoya Dassi V/s. Pudmo Loohun Mondol (1895) I.L.R. 29 Cal. 802 and Daivanayagan Pillai v.Bangasami Ayyar (1894) I.L.R. 19 Mai 29 support this view. 3. On the other hand, on behalf of the appellant, it has been contended, with the view of bringing this case within the rulings of this Court in the oases of Bhubon Mohun Pal V/s. Nunda Lai Dey (1899) I.L.R. 26 Cal. 324 Nemai Chand Kanji V/s. Deno Nath Kanji (1898) 2 C.W.N. 691 and Rojoni Kant Bagchi V/s. Hossain Uddin Ahmed (1899) 4 C.W.N. 538 that the respondent judgment-debtor made an allegation of fraud against the decree-holder in his petition for the setting aside of the sale, and therefore, that the order passed was one under Section 244, and a decree, and accordingly a second appeal does lie.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.