Mohendro Nauth Dawn vs Ishun Chunder Dawn on 1 June, 1883

Last Updated on

Calcutta High Court
Mohendro Nauth Dawn vs Ishun Chunder Dawn on 1 June, 1883
Equivalent citations: (1884) ILR 10 Cal 56
Author: Pigot
Bench: Pigot


Pigot, J.

1. This application must be refused. The reason why I dismiss it is a short one: the matter comes before me on summons for a better affidavit, and it is sought to alter the application into one under Sections 131, 132 and 133. I think that would involve a power of making an order under Section 133 more extensive than the Court has. Without expressing an opinion as to what order the Court would make in a case under Section 133, in a case appropriate to it, I do not think that the Court would make any order under that section unless the preliminary steps had been taken by the party such as are set out in Section 131; and I think that no notice purporting to be a notice under Section 131 having been given, save the letter of the 21st May, and there having been no omission to give notice of the time for inspection and no objection to give inspection having been made, I am disqualified from acting under Section 133. I dismiss the application on the simple ground that I am not clothed with authority to act under Section 133.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes:

<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

* Copy This Password *

* Type Or Paste Password Here *