( to t ) CONSTRUCTIONS No 1356 Held by a majority of the Courts of Sudder Dewanny Adawlut that orders passed by the Zillah Judges under Section 1, Act IX of 1839, rejecting application to sue in forma pauperis are appealable to the Sudder Dewanny Adaw. lut Calcutta Court, 22d July, Western Court, 19th August, 1842. U%" $७*७ त्रश्चव । DD BBBB DBBBBB BBBBHHD DD BBBBBB BBBD BBBBD BB BBB হীনমতে নালিশকবণের অনুমতি পাইবার দরখাস্তু ১৮৩৯ সালের ৯ আইনের ১ ধারানু সাবে জিলাৰ জজ সাচেৰ নামঞ্জুৰ কৰিলে তাহার হুকুমের উপর সদর দেওয়ানী আদা লতে আপীল হইতে পাৰে । कलिकांडाङ्ग जमद श्रांनालङ । २v8२ ॥ २२ ब्रूलाइ । পশ্চিম দেশেৰ সদৰ আদালত। ১৮৪২ ৷ ১৯ আগষ্ট । ৮ No 1357 Held on a reference from the Session Judge of Midnapore, that the decision of a Principal Sudder Ameen or Sudder Ameen passed in a Summary Suit instituted under Regulation VI of 1823, which has been referred to him for decision under Section 5, Act X of 1836, is not appealable, with reference to the rule of Section 6 of the former enactment Calcutta Court, 5th August, Western Court, 2d September, 1842 ১৩৫৭ নম্বষ । মেদিনীপুরেব সেশন জজ সাহেবেৰ জিজ্ঞাসা করাতে বিধান হইল যে কোন সৰাসৰী মোকদম ১৮২৩ সালেব ও আইনানুসাবে উপস্থিত হইলে যদি মিষপত্তি চওনের নিমিৰ তাহা ১৮৩৬ সাঙ্গেৰ ১ • আইনেৰ ৫ ধারানুসারে প্রধান সদৰ আৰ্মীন কি সঙ্গর আর্মী নের প্রতি সোপর্দ হয় তবে ১৮২৩ সালের ৬ আইমের ৬ ধারার বিধানমতে তাহার ফয়সলাব উপর আপীল হইতে পারিবেক মা । কলিকাতাৰ সদব আদালত। ১৮৪২। ৫ আগষ্ট। পশ্চিম দেশের সদর আদালত। ১৮৪২ । ২ সেপ্টেম্বৰ । No 1358 The following question was put to the Sudder Dewanny Adawlut for the North Western Provinces by the Judge of Cawnpore “I have a suit before me for possession of a Government 4 per Cent Promissory note for 5000 Sa Rs, and have some doubt whether the appeal should not have been made to the Superior Court.” Extract of a letter from the Register of the Sudder Dewanny Adawlut for the North Western Provinces “The majority of the Court do not think any legal objection exists to the Judge hearing the appeal They observe the suit is not brought for the recovery of 5000 Shoea. Rupees, but for a document valued at 5000 Company's Rupees, and which, if now sold in the Bazar, would certainly not realize the sum at which the suit is brought. It was pledged for Rs 4,600, the amount for which it is said to be redeemable is 4,930" Reply of the Calcutta Court “I am directed by the Court to acknowledge the receipt of your letter No 1557, of the 5th ultimo, and to state, in reply, that the sut in question having been brought to recover possession of a Government Promistory Note for Rs 5000, without mention of any currency, which amount is covered by a Stamp of 150 Be, and no objection having been urged against the valuation in the Court of first instance, the Court are of opinion, with the majority of the Western Court, that the appeal lies to the Zillah Court.” р Western Court, 5th August, Calcutta Court, 2d September, 1842. IGoveranen geseus, lith October, 1842.] झनंकुशमं यंीं चरॆिरनङ्ग खं । 1889 Act IX Section 1 ১৮৩৯ সাল
- खाiहेब ১ ধারা ।
1828 Reg WI 1836 Act X 為V &○ 所博W ৬ জাইম । SrSy ffas s० अप्टेिन । 1829 Reg X Sch B Art 8
