Research › Browse › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

1934 DIGILAW 57 (CAL)

Tarak Gobinda Choudhury v. Tara Gobinda Choudhury

1934-02-19

LORD WILLIAMS, LORT.WILLIAMS, M.C.GHOSE

body1934
JUDGMENT Lort. Williams, J. - This is a reference purporting to be Under Order 46, Rule 1, Civil P. C. That order provides that where, before or on the hearing of a suit or an appeal in which the decree is not subject to appeal any question of law arises on which doubt is entertained, a Court may draw up a statement of facts on any point of doubt arising and refer it for decision to the High Court. This reference arises out of an application u/s 93, Ben. Ten. Act, for appointment of a common manager. Although it is true, as the learned Judge states in his letter of reference, that the CPC applies to proceedings u/s 93, Ben. Ten. Act, yet it is clear that the proceedings under that section do no amount to a suit, but are in the nature of an application, as has been pointed out by the learned advocate. In every suit there must be a plaint and there must be a decree, and both these are absent in an application u/s 93, Ben. Ten. Act. It is clear therefore that the point which has given difficulty to the learned Judge has not arisen out of a suit, within the meaning of Order 46, Rule 1 of the Code and consequently, the reference is not competent and must be rejected. M.C.Ghose, J. I agree.