The Calcutta Weekly Notes May 12 1952

Mookerjee J. held that as the landlord had no notice of the tranfer by the raiyat the landlord was not bound to implead the transferee so as to obtain the benefit of sale under Chapter XIV Of the Bengal Tenancy Act. [...] It has been pointed out that in such cases the question to be considered for detemining whether the decree was a rent decree is not simply whether notice of the transfer was served on the landlord but whether the defendants to the suit or the judgment-debtor in the execution proceeings represented the tenancy. [...] 146A of the Bengal Tenancy Act lays down a rule of evidence under which if none of the persons specified in the four clauses are excluded from the category of defendants then it will be conclusively proved that all the co-sharer tenants though not parties to the suit were represented by the defendants and bound by the decree. [...] Where therefore as here the accused was prosecuted without valid sanction there was no 'prosecution' witin the meaning of the Article nor was there 'punishment' within the meaning of the Article since the accused was dicharged for want of sanction. [...] 226 of the Constitution is liable to review under Order 47 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure on the ground of 'mistake or error apparent On the face of the record' in a case where the most important point arising in the petition was not considered (the Counsel not haing put forward that aspect of the case)' namely whether the Government acted without jurisdiction in exercising its powers