Skip to content


Kunwar Ji and ors. Vs. Roshan Singh and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtAllahabad
Decided On
Reported inAIR1949All462
AppellantKunwar Ji and ors.
RespondentRoshan Singh and ors.
Excerpt:
.....filed under section 9 by the employees working in schools which are established and administered by the cantonment board. [deolali cantonment board v usha devidas dongre, 1993 mah.lj 74; 1993 lab ic 1858 overruled]. - tenancy act, 1939, is that the appeal from the order complained against is not maintainable and we, therefore, dismiss the appeal with costs......the provisions of the code of civil procedure have been made applicable and as under the said code an appeal lies from such an order passed by the district judge, this appeal is maintainable. a careful examination of section 243 will show that the entire code of civil procedure has not been applied to the suits and proceedings under the u.p. tenancy act. there are three requisites for the application of any provision of the code, namely (a) the provision should not be inconsistent with anything in the tenancy act, (b) the provisions relating to special suits or proceedings do not apply, and (c) the provision contained in list 'a' of schedule 2 are also not applicable to suits and proceedings under the tenancy act.3. section 263, u.p. tenancy act, shows that the intention was to make.....
Judgment:

Bind Basni Prasad, J.

1. A preliminary objection has been raised by learned Counsel for the respondents that no appeal lies. An order in the present case was passed by the learned District Judge in an appeal arising out of a case under the U.P. Tenancy Act, 1939. The appeal was dismissed for default and an application for the setting aside of that order was dismissed. It is from that order of the learned District Judge that this appeal has been preferred.

2. Counsel for the appellants contends that by virtue of Section 243, U.P. Tenancy Act, 1939, the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure have been made applicable and as under the said Code an appeal lies from such an order passed by the District Judge, this appeal is maintainable. A careful examination of Section 243 will show that the entire Code of Civil Procedure has not been applied to the suits and proceedings under the U.P. Tenancy Act. There are three requisites for the application of any provision of the Code, namely (a) the provision should not be inconsistent with anything in the Tenancy Act, (b) the provisions relating to special suits or proceedings do not apply, and (c) the provision contained in list 'A' of Schedule 2 are also not applicable to suits and proceedings under the Tenancy Act.

3. Section 263, U.P. Tenancy Act, shows that the intention was to make provisions relating to appeals exhaustive. It provides:

No appeal shall lie from any decree or order passed by any Court under this Act except as provided in this Act.

There can be no room for doubt that an appeal under any other provision of law was not intended by the U.P. Tenancy Act. Provisions relating to appeals from orders of appellate Court are contained in Section 272 and it provides that no appeal shall lie from any order passed in appeal under the provisions of certain sections of the Tenancy Act. That does not mean that an appeal would lie from an order passed under any other provision of the law. We are of opinion that the combined effect of Sections 243, 263 and 272, U.P. Tenancy Act, 1939, is that the appeal from the order complained against is not maintainable and we, therefore, dismiss the appeal with costs.


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