P L D 1952 Dacca 467 (PLP)
MASHWAB ALI‑Appellant Versus NIMBAR ALI and others‑Respondents
| Citation | P L D 1952 Dacca 467 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | |
| Bench Members | Ibrahim, J |
| Parties | MASHWAB ALI‑Appellant Versus NIMBAR ALI and others‑Respondents |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in P L D 1952 Dacca 467 (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case P L D 1952 Dacca 467 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the bench comprising: Ibrahim, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: P L D 1952 Dacca 467 (PLP) (MASHWAB ALI‑Appellant Versus NIMBAR ALI and others‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Ashrafuddin Choudhury and M. H. Khondbar for Appellant.
- Abdul Wadud Choudhury for Syed A. B. Mahmud Husain for Respondents.
Headnotes / Summary
Sylhet Tenancy Act (XI of 1936), S. 35 (6)‑Order appealable. Subsection (7) of section 34 of the Sylhet Tenancy Act lays down that an order passed on an application under sub‑section (6) of this section will have the effect of a decree of a Civil Court. There is no provision in the Sylhet Tenancy Act or in the Civil Procedure Code providing that there shall be no appeal from such an order. Clearly, therefore. an appeal lies. Harey Krishna Maharatna v. Kali Krishna Sarma 49 C W N 683 dissent.
Judgment & Decree
Ashrafuddin Choudhury and M. H. Khondbar for Appellant. Abdul Wadud Choudhury for Syed A. B. Mahmud Husain for Respondents. IBRAHIM, J.‑
This appeal relates to an application under section 34, subsection (6) of the Sylhet Tenancy Act (Act XI of 1936 as amended by Assam Act V of 1943). The application for redemption was allowed in part by the learned Munsif. An appeal from that order was dismissed by the learned District judge on the ground that the appeal was not competent. The learned District Judge relied on Harey Krishna Maharatna v. Kali Kumar Sarma, 49 C W N 683, where in a similar case Henderson J. held that no appeal lay from an order under subsection (6) of section 34 of the Sylhet Tenancy Act. With due respect I am unable to agree with the view taken in this case. Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure allows an appeal from every decree unless otherwise expressly provided in the Code of Civil Procedure or in any other law for the time being in force. Subsection (7) of section 34 of the Sylhet Tenancy Act lays down that an order passed on an application under subsection (6) of this section will have the effect of a decree of a Civil Court. There is no provision in the Sylhet Tenancy Act or in the Civil Procedure Code providing that there shall be no appeal from such an order. Clearly, therefore, an appeal lies. The judgment and order of the learned District judge cannot be sustained in these circumstances, and I accordingly, set aside the same and remand the appeal to him for re‑hearing and disposal on merits according to law. The appeal is allowed. Costs of this appeal will abide the result. In the view I have taken, no order is necessary on the alternative application under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure. A. H. Appeal allowed.