Allow Cookies!
By using our website, you agree to the use of cookies
The Calcutta High Court, while passing an interim order, stated that communication of an order by an Advocate is as good as a certified copy of the same, unless it is strongly rebutted. The Court was hearing an appeal against a trial court order, which had rejected an application which sought an opportunity to lead evidence. The petitioner had then appealed against this rejection in the High Court which granted him to pray for adjournment in the trial court.
However, the trial court refused to grant an adjournment despite the fact that the counsel had produced a letter communicating the High Court’s order and heard the petition under Section 7(1) and (2) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act. After observing the fact that the trial court had disposed the matter, Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharya stated that the trial court had acted without jurisdiction in disbelieving such communication and disposing of the application in question on merits. The Court stayed all further proceedings in suit for ejectment and passed this interim order against the trial court’s impugned decision.
86540
103860
630
114
59824