Bench:
Hon'ble Chief Justice Mr. Chakrabarti, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Guha
Appellant:
Satyadhyan Ghosal
Respondent:
Deorajin Debi
Issue
Does the fact that in an earlier stage, a Court has decided on an interlocutory matter in one way and no appeal has been taken or appeal did lie and a higher court at a later stage of the same litigation, considered the same matter again?
Facts
- A decree against the tenants for eviction was won by the landlord. However, he couldn’t get possession. In this regard, The Calcutta Thikka Tenancy came into force.
- The tenants filed an application under Section 28 of the The Calcutta Thika Tenancy (Amendment) Act, 1953 Act, claiming to be Thikka tenants. The decree was not rescinded and the Munsiff ruled against the tenants.
- The appeal court observed whether Sub-Section 1(2) under Section 28 was applicable and affirmed to the same.
- The High Court rejected the landlord’s application against Munsiff’s changed orders. Here the applicability of Section 28 could not be successful due to the application of Res Judicata.
Appellant’s contentions
- Mr. Gupta contended that the order in question in the present case ought to be treated as a final order, because after the case went back to the learned Munsif, he would have to perform only the mechanical act of transferring the case to the Controller in order that the necessary further steps might be taken.
Respondent’s contentions
- In view of those findings of the High Court, all the material questions which could arise under Section 28 had not been finally disposed of and, therefore, although formally the order made by this Court was not an order for remand.
Relevant Paragraphs
- This objection, in our opinion, cannot be maintained. We are not aware of any legislation or regulation in India that requires a suitor to appeal from any interlocutory ruling in which he believes he has been wronged, with the risk of forfeiting the benefit of the appellate court's consideration for all time if he does not do so.
- No authority or precedent has been cited in support of such a proposition, and we cannot imagine anything more harmful to the efficient administration of justice than the establishment of a rule that would force the suitor to appeal, whereby he would be harassed with endless expense and delay on the one hand, and inflict on his opponent on the other. We believe there have been numerous situations before this Tribunal in which their Lordships have thought it their responsibility to correct erroneous interlocutory rulings, despite the fact that they were not brought before them until the entire case had been decided and brought here by appeal.
Judgement
The High Court did not accept the application and it failed.
Click here to download the original copy of the judgement
