Rafia Begum v. Sakina Bibi And 16 ORS
INTHEHIGHCOURTOFTRIPURA AGARTALA CRPNo.91of2011 Smt.RafiaBegum,
!" #$% &&Petitioner -Versus- 1. Smt.SakinaBibi,
'
(
!" #)% 2. Smt.HazeraBibi,
'
( !" #*% 3. Smt.MajaniBibi,
+
'
( !" #$% ,
* $
4. SriAlkasMia,
!" #- % 5. SriDhanaMia,
!" #-.% 6. SriManjuMia,
!" #- % ,
# -/ 0
[2] 7. Smt.LatifaBibi, !" #-% 8. SriMajalHaquealiasTotaMia,
'
(
!" #)% 9. Sri Hanif Mia alias Manik Mia,
!" #* % 10.Smt.HanufaBibi,
!" #*.% ,
#1 )2
3
11.Smt.SukanBibi, (
' !
% !" #* % 12.Smt.RasunBibi, (
4 . !" #*% 13.Smt.KhushanBibi, '
5 ! % 6 !" #*% 14.SriHasemMia,
44 !" #$ % 15.SriKasemMia,
44 !" #$.%
[3] 16.SriAbdulAziz,
44 !" #$ % ,
#)-)/)0
3
17.Smt.RenuBegum,
!" #$% &&&&&Respondents BEFORE THEHON'BLEMR.JUSTICES.TALAPATRA 7 : 58( 7
: .(
4 +
49 ( 5
:*22)*2)/
8 :08.05.2015 : ; : YES NO √ JUDGMENT&ORDER
( **< 5
" 2-))*2)) 5 $**2)) 5
$)*2))
!%2-*221.8 5 : = [2]
>
#$!%
# ) <
.
!%2-*221 .
[4]
.
[3]
.8
.8. . .8 8#: +
8*$2/*2))
. >, *120*221
8.8 85
(
8 "? ,)$ 55.5 $)*2))
>, 4
>, 4 .
8 / 9
( .5 $**2)) 7 >
> .
# @>!% 2A *2))
8 > .5 -0*2)) )/) 1-! % 55. .8 2-))*2))
(
5 $* *2))
?9""" ,)!%
[5] 55 ( **< 5
" .
2-))*2))
4 "? )$ 55
?9""" )!% 55 [4] .
2-))*2)) .
48 4
8 .4 . 8
( **< !)% 5
" ( B 4 8.5 $**2))5 $) *2)) .
?9""" )!% 55 [5]
58
.4 C ' 5 Union of India vs. KhagendraNathDas, [1987]2GLR34, . 6 'noappealliesfromanorderunlessitisexpressly providedunderSection104and/orOrderXLIIIof the Code and in any event no second appeal lies fromtheorders.' [6]
58
8 ?9""" 55
[6]
,/ 9
( / 9
(
( 8 .
.8 > Shyam Sunder Sarma vs. Pannalal Jaiswal and others, (2005)1SCC436, > 6 Thefactofthecasewasthatforsettingasidethe ex parte decree under Order IX Rule 13 of the Codeaccompaniedbyanapplicationforcondoning the delay in filing that petition, and subsequently he also filed an appeal against that ex parte decree, again accompanied by an application for condoning the delay in filing that appeal. That application for condoning the delay in filing the appealagainsttheexpartedecreeandtheappeal against ex parte decree were both dismissed for default.
Thepetitionforsettingasidetheexparte decree under Order IX Rule 13 of the Code was filed first and the appeal was filed while that petition was pending. But before the petition under Order IX Rule 13 of the Code could be disposed of, the appeal had been dismissed for default.Thus,onthedaythepetitionunderOrder IXRule13oftheCodewastakenupfordisposal, noappealagainstthedecreewaspending. [7] "ShyamSunderSarmavs.
> 8
.8 8 .
.
. $ 9
( .
B
8 '5
"
.
.
8
[7]
4
[8] "
. .
PrafullaSarkarvs. KananDasandothers 6 When an aggrieved party files an appeal against theorderthenobviouslyintheverysameappealit can also challenge the order passed in the application for condonation of delay and is not requiredtofileaseparaterevisionpetitioninthat regard. Since the order refusing to condone the delay merges in the final order dismissing the mainapplicationorappealwhenchallengeismade to the final order then the interim order whereby thedelaywascondonedcanalsobechallenged. [9] B 8 .8PrafullaSarkarvs. Kanan Das and others 5 ( **< 5
" .
; .
5 .
. 4
,.
5 8>
8 . 8 "
.8 8 .
.8
.8
>
5
D )22**221
[8]
4 8# : +
[11] "
>
8 4 ( ,**< 5
" 8
95 JUDGE