Q. Who were the advocates involved in the case Abdul Jalil vs Amar Chand Paul?

For Petitioner : Amarendra Nath Boss andManmotha Nath MookerjeeFor Respondent : Nagendra Nath Ghose

Q. What are the equivalent citations for Abdul Jalil vs Amar Chand Paul ?

The equivalence citation are21 IND. CAS. 510 ; LQ/CalHC/1913/306 ;

Q. What was the bench assigned for the case Abdul Jalil vs Amar Chand Paul?

Sir L.H. Jenkins, Kt., C.J., Sir Asutosh Mookerjee, Kt.,J.

Abdul Jalil Vs. Amar Chand Paul On 27 May, 1913

Are you looking for a legal research tool ?

Do check other products like LIBIL, a legal due diligence tool to get a litigation check report and Case Management tool to monitor and collaborate on cases.

Abdul Jalil v. Amar Chand Paul

(High Court Of Judicature At Calcutta)

Letters Patent Appeal No. 50 of 1910 | 27-05-1913

1. It would be profitless for us to discuss the bearing ofthe decisions in Mackenzie v. Narsing Sahai : 1 Ind. Cas. 413 [LQ/CalHC/1909/100] : 36 C. 762 : 10 C.L.J. 113, and Narain Das v. Balgobind : 11Ind. 517 : 33 A. 528 : 8 A.L.J. 604, because in this case we have to deal withthe fact that a preliminary decree was passed in appeal by the High Court,after a final decree previously passed by the Court of first instance. How thiscame about, we do not know, but it is a fact from which there is no escape, andwe, therefore, have to see what the result is. The decree of the High Court ofthe 8th of January 1903, though a preliminary decree, must be regarded asdecisive of the rights of the parties, notwithstanding the fact that there hadbeen a prior final decree, and in the special circumstances of this case, wehave so to determine. It is conceded before us that if the decree of the HighCourt is to be the governing decree, then the appeal fails. In the view we havetaken, therefore, this appeal must fail, and we dismiss it with costs.

.

Abdul Jalil vs. AmarChand Paul (27.05.1913 - CALHC)

Advocate List

For Petitioner

Amarendra Nath Boss andManmotha Nath Mookerjee

For Respondent

Nagendra Nath Ghose

Bench

Sir L.H. Jenkins, Kt., C.J.
Sir Asutosh Mookerjee, Kt.,J.

Eq Citations

21 IND. CAS. 510
LQ/CalHC/1913/306

Head Note

Evidence Act, 1872 — S. 41 — Preliminary decree passed in appeal by High Court after a final decree passed by Court of first instance — Effect of — Held, the decree of the High Court, though a preliminary decree, must be regarded as decisive of the rights of the parties, notwithstanding the fact that there had been a prior final decree