Banshibadan Mandal Vs Chhaunat Bibi and Others

Calcutta High Court 19 May 1925 (1925) 05 CAL CK 0001
Acts Referenced

Judgement Snapshot

Acts Referred
  • Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) - Order 43 Rule 1(j)

Judgement Text

Translate:

1. This is an appeal by the auction-purchaser in execution of a money decree. The respondents deposited the amount for which the property was sold sand purchased by the appellant; but it was contended the money deposited was short by 12 annas. Both the Courts below have held that this was due to a bona fide mistake and set aside the sale. The second appeal is from the appellate order of the District Judge of 24-Par-ganas.

2. A preliminary objection is taken by the respondents that no second appeal lies. We think that this contention should prevail. The order passed after the deposit made under Order 21, Rule 89 is an order under E. 92. An appeal lies from an order passed under that yule under Order 43, Rule 1(j), Code of Civil Procedure. But no second appeal lies from the order passed upon first appeal, u/s 104, Clause (2). It is argued by the learned advocate for the appellant that as the auction-purchaser was the decree-holder, the matter is covered by Section 47; and u/s 2, Civil P.C. the order passed u/s 47 is a decree and is appealable. We think that this contention is not sound. Section 47 covers matters arising between parties to the suit relating to execution, discharge and satisfaction of the decree. An order passed under that section is a decree as defined in Section 2, Civil P.C. But Clause (a) of that section excludes an order which is an adjudication from which an appeal lies as an appeal from order. All orders, therefore, between decree-holder and judgment-debtor u/s 47 are not decrees and appealable as such. In the present case an appeal lies as an appeal from order under Order 43, Rule (1)(j). A second appeal therefore does not lie. We are fortified in our view by the decision in the case of Asimadi Sheikh v. Sundari Bibi [1911] 38 Cal. 339. The appellant has referred to the case of Raghubar Dayal Sukul v. Jadu Nandan Misser [1911] Cri.L.J. 89 which was, however, a case under the Bengal Tenancy Act. In this view we hold that a second appeal does not lie and this appeal is dismissed with costs two gold mohurs.

From The Blog
COURTKAUTCEHRY SPECIAL STORY Manufactured Spending Under Tax Lens: Why Credit Card Reward Hacks Can Cost You in India
Dec
05
2025

Court News

COURTKAUTCEHRY SPECIAL STORY Manufactured Spending Under Tax Lens: Why Credit Card Reward Hacks Can Cost You in India
Read More
SCBA Survey Exposes Gender Bias in Indian Legal Profession: Global Lessons for Equality in Law
Dec
05
2025

Court News

SCBA Survey Exposes Gender Bias in Indian Legal Profession: Global Lessons for Equality in Law
Read More