CPC Case Brief – Satyadhyan Ghosal v. Deorajin Debi

Spread the love

You can grab notes on other topics of CPC here.

Facts- In this case, a landlord won a decree against the tenants for eviction from the property but was not able to get possession and further then the act of Calcutta Thikka Tenancy came into force. An application was made by tenants under section 28 of the same act saying they were thikka tenants and the Munsiff ruled they were not and decree was not rescinded. By the time the revision came to place the ordinance and amendment of act omitting section 28 had already come forward. The court saw §1 clause 2 to see whether application under §28 was still alive and answered in positive, held the appellants were Thikka tenants, okayed the revision application and remanded the case for Munsiff to decide according to law. Munsiff took back the earlier decree after remand. High court then rejected the landlord’s application against Munsiff’s orders and his question of applicability of §28 was unsuccessful as the judge held there was Res Judicata between the parties.

Issue- Does the fact that in an earlier stage a court has decided an interlocutory matter in one way and no appeal has been taken therefore or appeal did lie and a higher court at a later stage of the same litigation consider the same matter again?

Principle of Judgement- An interlocutory order which did not terminate the proceedings and which had not been appealed from either because no appeal was present or even though an appeal was present an appeal was not taken, could be challenged in an appeal from the final decree or order. Remand was an interlocutory judgment which did not terminate the proceedings and so the correctness of it can be challenged in an appeal from the final order.

You can grab notes on other topics of CPC here.

 


Spread the love

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *