Chiddu and ors. Vs. Kunwar Sen and ors. - Court Judgment
|Appellant||Chiddu and ors.|
|Respondent||Kunwar Sen and ors.|
.....by any such board comparable to the divisional board or the state board. that being the position, it is not possible to accept it to be a recognised school for being a private school under the act. for the reasons state above, the school tribunal constituted under section 8 of the act cannot entertain appeals 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]. - 49. for the above reasons i am of opinion that this appeal must fail and i dismiss it with costs......should be decided according to what a certain person named sobha ram should state on oath. the learned munsif accordingly issued a summons to sobha ram. when he appeared, the plaintiffs, who are appellants here, made certain allegations of collusion against sobha ram and asked to be allowed to withdraw from the reference. the learned munsif refused to allow them to withdraw, and as sobha ram stated that the plaintiffs had not been in possession of the land in dispute for 16 years, and that the defendants had been in possession, he dismissed the suit. the decision of the munsif was affirmed on appeal by the learned additional judge of aligarh. the plaintiffs come here in second appeal. in my judgment the court below was right. in my opinion when a party to a suit has made a reference.....
1. In this case the parties to the suit put in a joint application stating that they had agreed that the case should be decided according to what a certain person named Sobha Ram should state on oath. The learned Munsif accordingly issued a summons to Sobha Ram. When he appeared, the plaintiffs, who are appellants here, made certain allegations of collusion against Sobha Ram and asked to be allowed to withdraw from the reference. The learned Munsif refused to allow them to withdraw, and as Sobha Ram stated that the plaintiffs had not been in possession of the land in dispute for 16 years, and that the defendants had been in possession, he dismissed the suit. The decision of the Munsif was affirmed on appeal by the learned Additional Judge of Aligarh. The plaintiffs come here in second appeal. In my judgment the Court below was right. In my opinion when a party to a suit has made a reference of this kind, whether it be considered to be a reference to arbitration or a reference to the oath of a witness, such as is referred to in Section 9 of the Indian Oaths Act, 1873, he should not be allowed arbitrarily to withdraw from the reference. In this case the plaintiffs produced no evidence whatever to support their allegation that the referee had colluded with the opposite party. I agree with what was said by Stuart, C.J., in Lekhraj Singh v. Dulhma Kuar (1880) I.L.R., 4 All., 302. I would also refer to what is said in the case of Ram Narain Singh v. Babu Singh (1895) I.L.R., 18 All., 46, at p. 49. For the above reasons I am of opinion that this appeal must fail and I dismiss it with costs.