SINDHURAM CHAUDHURY Vs. KRISHNA DUTTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a petn. by the judgment -debtor under Article 133 of the Constitution for leave to appeal to the S.C. of India from an order passed by this Ct. on 13 -12 -1949. The operative part of the order is in these terms:

(2.) THE only question argued before us was as to whether the appln. by the decree -holder for execution of his decree for possession was time barred. We came to the conclusion that the decree -holder's appln. to execute the decree for possession was not time -barred & remanded the case to the Ct. that passed the decree for disposal of the decree holder's appln. for delivery of possession in accord and with law.

(3.) THE question for out decision is as to whether the order passed by this Ct. on 13.12.49 is a final order within the meaning of Article 133 of the Const. Ind. We think that it is Ct. Harries, C.J. had occasion to consider the meaning of the expression "final order" in Raj kumar Chandra v. Midnapore Zemindary Co. Ltd. 54 C.W.N. 874. After referring to the case of Abiul Rahman v. D.K. Cassim & Sons : A.I.R. 1933 P.C. 68, Harries, C.J., observed that the observations of Sir George Lowndes in the above case were followed by the F. Order in Mohammad Amin BrOrs. Ltd. v. The Dominion of India, A.I.R. 1950 F.C. 77 wherein it was observed: