Skip to content


Ghasiram Vs. Mussammat Nuraj Begam - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtAllahabad High Court
Decided On
Judge
Reported in(1875)ILR1All31
AppellantGhasiram
RespondentMussammat Nuraj Begam
Excerpt:
.....board. the school tribunal constituted under section 8 of the maharashtra act cannot entertain appeals filed under section 9 by the employees working in schools which are established and administered by the cantonment board. teacher employed in the school run by cantonment board being covered under rule 2 (f) of the cantonment fund servants rules, 1937 can file appeal under rules 13, 14 and 15 to authorities provided therein against any order imposing any penalties etc. [deolali cantonment board v usha devidas dongre, 1993 mah. lj 74; 1993 lab ic 1858 overruled]. -- maharashtra employees of private schools (conditions of service) regulations act, 1978 [act no. 3/1978]. sections 9 & 2(21): jurisdiction of school tribunal whether a school run by cantonment board is not a recognised..........the evidence upon the record of the lower sufficient, the appellate court is sufficient to enable the appellate court to pronounce a court must determine the satisfactory judgment, the appellate court shall finally determine case though the lower the case, notwithstanding that the judgment of the lower court court has decided on other has proceeded wholly upon some other ground.] grounds. ?[section 355:--it shall not be competent to the parties in an appeal to produce additional evidence in the appellate court, whether of exhibits or witnesses; when the appellate court    but if it appears that the lower court refused to admit competentmay call for fresh evidence,    evidence, or if the appellate court require any exhibits to be  produced.....
Judgment:

1. It has been argued, it is doubtful from the language of the honourable the Chief Justice, whether, under Section 353 *, Civil Procedure Code, he intended to frame and remit issues for trial, or under Section 355 merely to direct the Court below to take further evidence. We think it unnecessary to determine this point, because we are of opinion that in either view this appeal cannot be entertained.

2. There has been no judgment in the sense in which we construe that term in Clause 10 of the Letters Patent. There must be such a judgment on the part of all the learned and honourable Judges who may constitute a Bench as disposes of the suit on appeal before it. The learned Chief Justice has as yet recorded no such judgment, and to enable the Bench to do so, he has considered it necessary to obtain further materials.

3. Under the circumstances, we reject the appeal, and as the respondents have appeared, with costs.

When the evidence is *[Section 353:-When the evidence upon the record of the Lower

sufficient, the Appellate Court is sufficient to enable the Appellate Court to pronounce a

Court must determine the satisfactory judgment, the Appellate Court shall finally determine

case though the Lower the case, notwithstanding that the judgment of the Lower Court

Court has decided on other has proceeded wholly upon some other ground.]

grounds.

?[Section 355:--It shall not be competent to the parties in an appeal to produce additional

evidence in the Appellate Court, whether of exhibits or witnesses;

 When the Appellate Court    but if it appears that the Lower Court refused to admit competent

may call for fresh evidence,    evidence, or if the Appellate Court require any exhibits to be

  produced or witnesses examined to enable it to pronounce a satisfactory

judgment, or for any other substantial cause, the Appellate Court may allow additional exhibits to be

received and any necessary witnesses to be examined, whether such witnesses shall have been previously

examined in the Court below or not provided that, whenever additional evidence is admitted by an Appellate

Court, the reasons for the admission shall be recorded on the proceedings of such Court.]


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //