Niranjan Mandal and Ors. v. Gugal Pandit and Ors.
Case brief
What is this about?
This was an oral order in the High Court of Patna. The court held that the valuation of the suit was below the jurisdiction and directed sending the appeal back to the District Judge, Banka, along with pending petitions.
What did the court decide?
Appeal sent back to District Judge, Banka/concerned Court within four weeks along with pending petition.
What the court decided
A compact analysis
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA First Appeal No.107 of 2014
====================================================== Niranjan Mandal & Ors .... .... Appellant/s Versus Gugal Pandit & Ors .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Appellant/s : Mr. J.S. Arora, Senior Adv. For the Respondent/s : Mr. Amrendra Kumar Sinha No. 1, Adv/ ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. ANJANA MISHRA ORAL ORDER
8 13-09-2018 Heard learned counsel for the appellants and learned counsel for the respondents.
It appears that the valuation of suit is much below the jurisdiction of this Court and, therefore, it has to be sent back to the Court below for appropriate orders.
Let this appeal be sent back to the District Judge, Banka/concerned Court within a period of four weeks from today along with the pending petition.
(Anjana Mishra, J)
Jagdish/-
U
Issues for consideration
1 issue framed by the court
Whether an appeal where the valuation is below jurisdiction should be sent back to the lower court.
Parties & counsel
- appellant
Niranjan Mandal & Ors
- respondent
Gugal Pandit & Ors
Coram
ANJANA MISHRA
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court