Ad Code

Recent Posts

6/recent/ticker-posts

Gokar Damji & Sons v. Gulamhussein Saleh Haji, Civ. App. 30-D-67, 3/6/68, Georges C. J.



Gokar Damji & Sons v. Gulamhussein Saleh Haji, Civ. App. 30-D-67, 3/6/68, Georges C. J.

On 4 May, 1967, a decree was entered in favour of plaintiffs for approximately Shs. 20,000/-. On 7 September, 1967, an order was made under Order 20, Rule 11, of the Civil Procedure Code 1966, allowing defendants to pay by installments  of Shs. 250/- per month, interest at 6% per annum. In the trial court’s second order, reference was made “in the introductory part” to the decree of 4 May, 1967, but “there is no reference to it in the substantive part,” according to the High Court’s summary. Plaintiffs appealed the lower court’s disposition of the case, saying there were aggrieved by the “order made by the learned Senior Resident Magistrate on the 7th September 1967.”

            Held: (1) The order of 7 September cannot be considered as part of the original decree in the suit, on the facts of this case. (2) An order under Order 20, Rule 11 may not be  

Appealed to the High Court. Section 74 of the Procedure Code specifies the orders of Resident Magistrates and District Courts from which appeals to the High Court are allowed. A further specification, of orders “under rules from which  an appeal is expressly allowed by rules,” is contained in Order 40, Rule 1. In neither place, nor in any other law brought to the attention of the Court, is an order under Order 20, Rule 11, made appeal able. Plaintiffs’ appeal dismissed. 

Post a Comment

0 Comments