CourtKutchehry.com
High CourtsSingle Bench

Jogai Chamarin vs Atul Krishna Laha and Others

Calcutta High Court · Decided on 30 April 1953 · Citation: AIR 1953 Cal 770 : 57 CWN 566 : 57 CWN 506

HON’BLE JUDGES
K.C. Chunder, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Calcutta Thika Tenancy (Amendment) Act, 1953 — Section 1 · Calcutta Thika Tenancy Act, 1949 — Section 28, 29
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
A.F.A.O. No. 47 of 1952
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

5 paragraphs · 247 words

K.C. Chunder, J.—This is an appeal against an appellate decree of the first subordinate Judge of 24-Parganas affirming that of the first Munsif of Sealdah.

2.

An application was made u/s 27, Thika Tenancy Act 1949 for rescinding or varying the decree. Against the order passed by the Munsif, an appeal was taken to the Court of the Subordinate Judge and the Subordinate Judge decided that no appeal was competent. Against that an appeal as well as an alternative revisional application have been filed in this Court. Those were pending on 21-10-1952. In view of Section 1 of the Amendment Act of 1953 and its proviso, it is clear that in pending proceedings the old Act as amended by this Amendment Act of 1953 has got to be applied and shall be deemed to have application always. Now as far as Amendment Act is concerned, in Section 8 it says that Sections 28 and 29 of the original Act shall be omitted. The result therefore is that it is to be deemed always not to have Sections 28 and 29 as far as pending proceedings are concerned in view of the proviso to Section 1 of the Amendment Act.

3.

The result therefore is that Section 28 being omitted this appeal as well as the alternative application for revision are incompetent and do not lie and these are therefore dismissed.

4.

There will be no order for costs.

5.

Let the records be sent down without delay.