Application for review rejected, as of the lower court, al though affirming its order. J. H. PATTON, Esq., CASE NO. 194 OF 1858. Application for Review of Judgment passed by Messrs. H. T. Raikes, B. J. Colvin, and J. H. Patton, in case No. 341 of 1856, decided on the 19th June 1858. MR. ROBERT WATSON, (APPELLANT,) PEtitioner, versus RAM SINGH AND OTHERS, (RESPONDENTS,) OPPOSITE Vakeels of Petitioners-Messrs. R. T. Allan and Doyne. THESE objections would, it appears, rather apply to the decision passed by the court below, which took a view of its own in holding this Court had the suit barred by limitation. We did not consider the plaint not adopted could be interpreted with a prayer to be allowed to measure the the reasoning lands and enhance the rent of the mookurureedar, but to oust him altogether, as a party usurping possession of the lands under a fictitious lease, which he pretended to have derived from the lessors of the plaintiff; and, as the plaintiff had for a period of 19 years recognised defendant as tenant of the lands, the law of limitation would not now allow of his questioning the deed except on proof of its fraudulent acquisition. This Court therefore in no respect adopted the ruling of the lower court as to its application of the law of limitation, or looked into the terms of the potta, so far as to ascertain whether it was originally a life grant or not; and consequently our judgment was only intended to agree with the resulting order of the lower court, inasmuch as we also were of opinion that the plaintiff's case was inadmissible, but our reasoning and conclusions were distinct from those of the lower court and did not in any way uphold them. On our own judgment, we see no reason to grant a review, and reject this application. Application for Review of Judgment passed by Messrs. H. T. KHODA NEWAZ KHAN AND ALEE NEWAZ KHAN, (TWO versus BEEBEE CATHERINE ARRATHOON, (APPELLANT,) AND Vakeel of Petitioners-Baboo Poorunchunder Roy. Vakeel of the Opposite Party-None. THE applicants' pleader admits that the applicants' plea der at the time being was not present, and therefore made no representation to the Court for their costs when the case was up for hearing. We therefore refuse to take up their petition for review on any such grounds. Application for Review of Judgment passed by Messrs. H. T. Raikes, B. J. Colvin, and J. H. Patton, in case No. 228 of 1857, decided on the 27th May 1858. MRS. BONNEVIE AND OTHERS, (RESPONDENTS,) PETITIONERS, versus NUBDEEPCHUNDER ROY, (APPELLANT,) OPPOSITE PARTY. AT the request of Mr. Allan, pleader, employed in this matter of review, we strike the case off the file, as he wishes to withdraw the application. Application for costs by petition of review rejected, as applicants' pleader was absent when the case was heard, so that they were not then applied for. Application for review struck off at request of pleader of appellant. Petition rejected, counsel not having appeared, after due notice, to support it, Case re manded, as the principal sud der ameen's judgment was defective, he not having tried the proper issue, whether the land sued for by plaintiff as H. V. BAYLEY, Esq.,, CASE NO. 222 OF 1858. Application for Review of an order passed on the 4th September 1858, by Messrs. C. B. Trevor, G. Loch, and H. V. Bayley, striking off a petition for Review of Judgment, on account of default, in case No. 157 of 1856, decided 30th April 1858. PRANN ATH CHOWDREE AND OTHERS, (Respondents,) PETITIONERS, versus RANEE SHURNOMOYEE, (APPELLANT,) OPPOSITE PARTY. Vakeel of the Opposite Party-None. THIS petition cannot, in our opinion, be complied with. The counsel had due notice of the case having been fixed for Saturday the 4th, and the order for striking it off shews fully the reasons for that order. If the counsel was unable to come, the parties should have made arrangements for providing other counsel; and we do not think the circumstances justify our deviating from the general rule on the subject. Petition rejected. THE 13TH SEPTEMBER 1858. PRESENT: H. T. RAIKES, Esq., Judge. H. V. BAYLEY, Esq., Officiating Judge. PETITION No. 412 OF 1858. IN the matter of the petition of Osman Soadagur, filed in this Court on the 24th March 1858, praying for the admission of a special appeal from the decision of Baboo Nobinkissen Paulit, principal sudder ameen of Chittagong, dated 20th December 1857, reversing that of Moulvee Ameerooddeen Mahomed, sudder moonsiff of that district, dated 13th December 1855, in the case of Osman Soadagur, plaintiff, versus Gobindchunder Dutt and others, de fendants. Vakeel of Petitioner-Baboo Kishensukha Mookerjee. It is hereby certified that the said application is granted on the following grounds. Plaintiff sued for possession of land as belonging to his turruf "Jugmohun;" defendant averring that it belonged to turruf "Gosaeen" his lakhiraj. The moonsiff decreed the case in plaintiff's favor, on the ground that a certain decree of 20th May 1833, and kyfeuts, &c. of 1833 and 1834, proved plaintiff's claim. The principal sudder ameen on appeal held that plaintiff sued on a deed of sale, but had neither proved nor even adduced it. He dismissed plaintiff's case on this ground only. The plaintiff appeals specially, urging: First. That nowhere in the pleadings or grounds of appeal to the principal sudder ameen by defendants, was any specific objection raised to his (plaintiff's) deed of sale, and that therefore the principal sudder ameen was wrong in deciding the case solely on that ground. Secondly. That the real issue was whether the documents, on which the moonsiff had decided the land in suit to belong to the plaintiff's turruf "Jugmohun," supported that finding. On a reference to the decision of the principal sudder ameen, we find that his judgment is defective, as he did not try the proper issue, i. e. whether the plaintiff's proof, as detailed by the moonsiff or on the record, supported his claim to the lands in suit as part of his turruf" Jugmohun," or did not. This was really the main point in issue, and should have been tried, and not the plaintiff's original title only, which was not a matter either specifically pleaded to, or appealed upon by him. We admit the special appeal, and remand the case, to be tried with reference to the above issue. belonging to his estate, was proved to do so, or not. H Case re manded, the held to be THE 13TH SEPTEMBER 1858. PRESENT: H. T. RAIKES, Esq., }Judges. J. H. PATTON, Esq., S H. V. BAYLEY, Esq., Officiating Judge. PETITION No. 744 OF 1858. In the matter of the petition of Moteeoollah, filed in this Court appeal being on the 19th May 1858, praying for the admission of a special appeal from the decision of Moulvee Itrut Hossein, principal sudder ameen of Rungpore, dated 15th February 1858, affirming that of Baboo Kallydass Dutt, acting moonsiff of that district, dated 23rd July 1857, in the case of Atta Bewa, plaintiff, versus Moteeoollah, defendant. within time after deduc tion of the period for which the courts were closed. Vakeel of Petitioner-Baboo Dinnonath Mitter. It is hereby certified that the said application is granted on the following grounds. Petitioner was defendant, and had a decree passed against him in the moonsiff's court, on the 23rd July 1857. On the 27th idem, the copy was delivered, and he filed a notice of appeal on the 21st August following. On the 22nd of the month, the courts were closed for the long vacations, and did not re-open until the 20th October, on which day the petitioner filed his reasons of appeal in detail. The judge has rejected the appeal as beyond time, the reasons of appeal not having been filed within 30 days from the 27th of July. But as the courts closed on the 21st August, when he had six days left to him, and re-opened on the 20th, when he filed the reasons of appeal, he was within time, and therefore the precedent of the 8th January 1858, relied upon by the judge, has no reference to the present case. We consider the special appellant has made out clearly that his appeal was within time, and having called in a third judge (the respondent not being present) we decide the special appeal, and remand the case, that the judge may receive the appeal as filed within the period prescribed by law. |