LexSM. SAILA BALA DASSI versus SM. NIRMALA SUNDARI DASSI AND ANOTHER
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
S.C.R SUPREME COUHT REPORTS 1287 not consider it right to enter upon a discussion as to the true interpretation of the word "copy" occurring in any of those sections for we think that each section in each Act must, for · its true meaning and effect, depend on its own language, con- text and setting. In the result, for reasons stated above, we agree that the order passed by the Allahabad High Court on February 8, 1955 was correct and this appeal should be dismissed. Appeal dismissed. SM. SAILA BALA DASSI v. SM. NIRMALA SUNDARI DASSI. AND ANOTHER (S. R. DAS c. J., VENKATARAMA AIYAR, A. K. SARKAR and VIVIAN BosE JJ.) Civil Procedure-Addition of party-Transfer pendente lite-Appeal filed by ttansferor-Ri:ght of transferee to conti- nue appeal-Code of Civil Procedure (Act 5 of 1908); s. 146, 0. 22, r. 10 . . The second respondent sold the properties to the appellant in 1952 and the deed of sale recited that t.he properties were sold free of all enct.Jmbrances. The first (respondent who had obtained a mortgage decree in respect of the properties in 1935 did not take any steps to have the decree drawn up as required under the Original Side Rules of the Calcutta High Court until 1954, when she commenced proceedings for sale of. the mortgaged properties. The second respondent raised the ob- jection that the execution of the decree was barred by limita- . tion but that was. overruled by a single Judge·· of the High Court and an appeal against that order was preferred by the second respondent. Apprehending that the second respondent might enter into a collusive arrangement with the first respon- dent with a view to defeat her rights, the appellant made an application in the High Court under 0. 22, r. 10, of the. Code of Civil Procedure praying that she might be substituted in the place of the second respondent, · or in the alternative, be brought on record as additional appellant. The High Court having dismissed the application, the appellant. brought the present appeal: · Held, that the application could not be sustained under 0. 22, r. 10, of the Code of Civil Procedure because (1) assuming 1958 The State of Uttar Pradesh v. a. Tobit and Olh.ers Daso. J. 1968 February U. 1958 S aila Bala Da$$i v. N irmala Sundari Daasi r •nlcataratna Aiyar J. 1288 SUPRI<;l\ill COURT HEPORTS [1958] that the suit was considered as having l:een pending until the decree was dra~n up in 1954 no application was made to the Court where the suit was pending as provided in 0. 22, r. 10, and (ii) the application made to the appellate Court was also not within 0. 22, r. 10, as the transfer in question was made prior to the filing of the appeal and not during its pendency. The application, however. falls within s. 146 of the Code of Civil Procedure and the appellant is entitled to be brought on record since an appeal is a proceeding within the meaning of that section and the right to file an appeal carries \Vith it the right to continue an appeal which had been filed by the person under whom the appellant claims. JugaU<ishore Saraf v. Raw Cotton Ltd., (1955] 1 S.C.R. 1369, Sitharamaswami v. Lakshmi Narasimha, (1918) l.L.R. 41 Mad. 510 and Muthia Chettiar v. Govinddoss Krishnadoss, (1921) l.L.R. 44 Mad. 919, relied on. CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 350 of 1957. Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated August 6, I 956, of the Calcutta High Court on a notice of motion in Appeal No. 152 of 1955. N. C. Chatterjee and P. K. Mukherjee. for the appellant. B. Sen and P. K. Ghosh (for P. K. Bose), for respondent No. J. 1958. February 14. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by VENKATARAMA AIYAR J.-This is an appeal against an order of the High Court of Calcutta dated August 6, 1956, rejecting the application of the appellant to be brought on record as appellant in appeal No. 152 of 1955 pending be· fore it. The second respondent. Sudhir Kumar Mitter, was the owner of two houses, No. 86 / l, Cornwallis Street and No. 7-C, Kirti Mitter Lane, Calcutta. On May 19, 1934, he exe· cuted.a Mortgage for Rs. 3,000 over the said houses in favour of the first respondent, Sm. Nirmala Sundari Dassi. She instituted Suit No. 158 of 1935 on this mortgage, and obtain- ed a preliminary decree on March 8, 1935. The matter then came before the 'Registrar for taking of accounts, and by his report dated July 23, 1935 he found that a sum of S.C.R. SUP
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.