| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 1958 SLG 4056 = 1958 SLD 4056 = 1958 PLD 36 |
Dacca High Court
Second Appeal No. 16 of 1956, decided on 17th June 1957, against the order of Najabuddin Ahmed, Subordinate Judge, Chittagong, affirming the order of K. Ahmed, Munsif, Sadar, Chittagong.
Presented By: Murshed, J
Pasupati Ramabhadra Raju v. Ayitha Ramana and others A I R 1952 Mad. 125 ref. Bukkan Singh and another v. The District Board, Ludhiana I L R 14 Lah. 230 ; Shyam Mandal v. Sari Nath Banerjee and others 24 C L J 523 ; Muho Kishen v. Hurish Chunder 1867 (7) W R 142 and Forbes v. Maharaj Bahadur Singh (1914) I L R 41 Cal. 926 P C ref. Maksum-ul-Hakim for Syed A. N. M. Nasiruddin for Appellant. B. C. Das and Ahmad Sobhan for
Respondents.
Second Appeal No. 16 of 1956, decided on 17th June 1957, against the order of Najabuddin Ahmed, Subordinate Judge, Chittagong, affirming the order of K. Ahmed, Munsif, Sadar, Chittagong.
Presented By: Murshed, J
Pasupati Ramabhadra Raju v. Ayitha Ramana and others A I R 1952 Mad. 125 ref. Bukkan Singh and another v. The District Board, Ludhiana I L R 14 Lah. 230 ; Shyam Mandal v. Sari Nath Banerjee and others 24 C L J 523 ; Muho Kishen v. Hurish Chunder 1867 (7) W R 142 and Forbes v. Maharaj Bahadur Singh (1914) I L R 41 Cal. 926 P C ref. Maksum-ul-Hakim for Syed A. N. M. Nasiruddin for Appellant. B. C. Das and Ahmad Sobhan for
Respondents.
SULTAN AHMED SHARIF-Appellant
VERSUS
MATHURA MOHAN CHOWDHURY and others -- Respondents
Law: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)
Section: 47
Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S. 47-Power of execut ing Court to take notice of subsequent events An executing Court can certainly take note of the altered circumstances, but whether or not in a particular case it should allow execution to proceed and leave the party who considers himself aggrieved to file a separate suit should, depend upon the circumstances of that case. JUDGMENT MURSHED. J.-This appeal is directed against a decision pf N. Ahmed, Subordinate Judge, Third Court, Chittagong, in Miscellaneous Appeal No. 265 of 1955, affirming the judg ment and order passed by Mr. K. Ahmad, Munsif, First Court, Sadar, Chittagong, in Miscellaneous Case No. 22 of 1955. The facts of this case in so far as they are relevant for the purposes of appreciating the points that have been placed before me may be very briefly stated as follows :- The petitioner-appellant Sultan Ahmad was a tenant of the opposite-parry respondents, Mathura Mohan Chowdhury and others, under an agreement by which .039 acres of land in R. S. plots Nos. 1579 and 1580 of khatian No. 472 in mauza Battali within Chittagong Municipality was leased out to the said Sultan Ahmed for a period of nine years with a clause for a renewal of the lease thereafter. The said period of nine years expired on the 15th Magh, 1353 B. S. Sultan Ahmed erected certain structures on the said land and held over after the expiry of the term of the lease. Mathura Mohan Chowdhury and others thereafter treated Sultan as a monthly tenant-at-will. They determined the tenancy by service of notice under section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act. Thereafter they instituted a suit against the said Sultan Ahmad for recovery of arrears of rent and for ejecting him from the suit land. The suit came to be marked as O. S. No. 24 of 1950 in the Munsif's Court at Chittagong. This suit ended in favour of the plaintiffs who obtained a decree for arrears of rent and recovery of possession of the suit land against the said Sultan Ahmed. The plaintiffs. namely, Mathura Mohan Chowdhury and others, then instituted an Execution Case, namely, No. 57 of 1953, for recovery of khas possession of the said…