MD. HAIDER Vs. NURAN AHMED
HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
Referred Judgements :-
ATIMANNESSA BIBI V/S. ABDUL SOBHAN
MAHAMMED ABDUL GANI FAKIR V/S. MUSAMMAT KULSAN NESSA BIBI
MAFIZUDDIN MANDAL VS. RAHIMABIBI
Click here to view full judgement.
Chittatosh Mookerjee, J. -
(1.)Nuran Ahmed, who is the opposite party No. 1 in this Rule, brought a suit against the present Petitioner and others as Defendants in the Fourth Court of the Munsif at Alipore inter alia for a decree to have the properties of a private wakf, known as Badan Bibi Kalimuddin Sarkar Wakf Estate, ascertained and administered, for rendition of accounts by the Defendant No. 1 (the present Petitioner), for removal of the Defendant No. 1 from the managing mutwalliship and for appointment of administrator. The suit was valued at Rs. 500. The Defendant No. 1 (the present Petitioner) filed a written statement Contesting the said suit.
(2.)The learned Munsif, Fourth Court, Alipore, by his judgment dated August 27, 1974, held that he had no jurisdiction to try the suit, which was inter alia for removal of the Defendant No. 1 from managing mutwalliship. According to the learned Munsif, the learned District judge exercising powers of Kazi alone was competent to try the suit. He directed return of the plaint. The learned Munsif kept the remaining issue in the suit open. The Plaintiff opposite party No. 1 being aggrieved by the said order preferred an appeal. The learned Additional District Judge, Fourth Court, Alipore, by his ex parte judgment dated May 5, 1975, reversed the said decision and set aside the order of the learned Munsif for return of the plaint. He held that a regular suit lies for removal of a mutwalli. The learned Additional District Judge further held that, in view of Sec. 15 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the learned Munsif was competent to try the suit in question which was valued at Rs. 500. The learned Additional District Judge remanded the suit for decision on other issues and for final disposal of the suit.
(3.)The Plaintiff Petitioner being aggrieved by the aforesaid appellate order has obtained this Rule. The revisional application was filed after the expiry of the prescribed period. Therefore, the Plaintiff Petitioner has prayed that the delay of about 51 days in moving this Court may be condoned. The Petitioner has contended that he was not served with notice of the aforesaid Misc. Appeal which was allowed ex parte by the learned Additional District Judge. As he had no knowledge of the appellate order until the date mentioned in his revisional application, he could not file the said revisional application in time. The Rule raises questions about the jurisdiction of the learned Munsif to entertain the aforesaid suit inter alia for removal of a mutwalli. I propose first to examine the said jurisdictional question and then consider whether the Petitioner was prevented by sufficient cause from moving this Court in time against the appellate order.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.