Muhammad Abdul Karim Khan Vs. Afzul Shah - Court Judgment
|Judge||Chamier and ;Piggott, JJ.|
|Appellant||Muhammad Abdul Karim Khan|
.....22, clause (3) - act (local) no. ii of 1901 (agra tenancy act), section 197--transfer of an appeal in a suit cognizable by a revenue court to subordinate judge--powers exercisable by the latter. - cantonments act[c.a. no. 41/2006]. section 346 & cantonment fund (servants rules, 1937, rules 13, 14 & 15: [h.l. gokhale, ag. cj, p.v. hardas, naresh h. patil, r.m. borde & r.m. savant, jj] jurisdiction of school tribunal constituted under maharashtra employees of private schools (conditions of service) regulations act, (3 of 1978) held, school run by the cantonment board is a primary school and it is not a school recognised by any such board comparable to the divisional board or the state board. the school tribunal constituted under section 8 of the maharashtra act cannot entertain.....chamier and piggott, jj.1. this is an appeal against an order of the additional subordinate judge of aligarh setting aside a decree passed by the munsif of bulandshahr and remanding the suit to the munsif's court to be disposed of according to law. the munsif had held that the suit was not cognizable by a civil court and had on that ground dismissed it. the plaintiff appealed to the district judge, who transferred the appeal to the first additional subordinate judge for disposal. the latter officer was of opinion that the suit had been rightly instituted in the civil court and remanded the case to the munsif for trial on the merits. in appeal to this court it is contended that the suit was not cognizable by the civil court and that the subordinate judge had no power to make the order of.....
Chamier and Piggott, JJ.
1. This is an appeal against an order of the Additional Subordinate Judge of Aligarh setting aside a decree passed by the Munsif of Bulandshahr and remanding the suit to the Munsif's court to be disposed of according to law. The Munsif had held that the suit was not cognizable by a Civil Court and had on that ground dismissed it. The plaintiff appealed to the District Judge, who transferred the appeal to the first Additional Subordinate Judge for disposal. The latter officer was of opinion that the suit had been rightly instituted in the Civil Court and remanded the case to the Munsif for trial on the merits. In appeal to this Court it is contended that the suit was not cognizable by the Civil Court and that the Subordinate Judge had no power to make the order of remand. It is conceded that if the order of remand had been made by the District Judge, the case would have been covered by Section 197 of the Tenancy Act and no objection could have been taken to the order; but it is contended that the Subordinate Judge had no, power to act under that section. The case is covered by the decision in the case of Babu Nandan Prasad v. Changur (1894) I.L.R. 16 All. 363 F.B. On the authority of that ruling we must hold that the Additional Subordinate Judge had power to make the order of remand. The appeal fails and is dismissed with costs.