Skip to content


Dumi Chand Vs. Arja Nand and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtAllahabad
Decided On
Judge
Reported in(1915)ILR37All272
AppellantDumi Chand
RespondentArja Nand and ors.
Excerpt:
.....original plaintiff. - 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 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..........place of nihal singh deceased, the original plaintiff. the defendants respondents contend that no appeal lies. in our opinion the contention is well founded. it is not suggested that the order amounts to a decree as defined in the code. as an order it is certainly not appealable, for it was not passed under either rule 9 or rule 10 of order xxii. we were asked to treat the appeal as an application for revision. we are not prepared to do this. the court below does not appear to have acted without jurisdiction or with material irregularity in the exercise of its jurisdiction. moreover, nihal singh left a widow, who appears to be his legal representative, if the appellant is not the adopted son, and who may yet succeed in getting herself made plaintiff in place of her deceased husband. it.....
Judgment:

Chamier and Piggott, JJ.

1. This is an appeal against an order of the Additional Judge of Saharanpur, dismissing the appellant's application to be made plaintiff in the suit in the place of Nihal Singh deceased, the original plaintiff. The defendants respondents contend that no appeal lies. In our opinion the contention is well founded. It is not suggested that the order amounts to a decree as defined in the Code. As an order it is certainly not appealable, for it was not passed under either Rule 9 or Rule 10 of Order XXII. We were asked to treat the appeal as an application for revision. We are not prepared to do this. The court below does not appear to have acted without jurisdiction or with material irregularity in the exercise of its jurisdiction. Moreover, Nihal Singh left a widow, who appears to be his legal representative, if the appellant is not the adopted son, and who may yet succeed in getting herself made plaintiff in place of her deceased husband. It may also be possible to appeal against the order of the court, when passed/ dismissing the suit as having abated. There are two reported decisions of this Court that no such appeal lies, but the Bombay and Madras High Courts have held that such an order is tantamount to a decree and is appealable as such.

2. The present appeal is dismissed with costs.


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