Skip to content


Baji Lal and ors. Vs. Nawal Singh - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtAllahabad
Decided On
Judge
Reported inAIR1917All1216(1); (1917)ILR39All388
AppellantBaji Lal and ors.
RespondentNawal Singh
Excerpt:
.....xli, rule 21 - appeal decided ex parte--application by respondent for rehearing--non appearance of counsel for respondent due to conduct of respondent's agent. - 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..........respondent had entrusted the business of looking after the appeal on his behalf and seeing that it was duly prosecuted. subsequently nathu ram withdrew the instructions, and counsel was thus unable to appear. we think that the applicant is really seeking relief on the ground of misconduct or neglect of duty on the part of his own agent. he has no doubt a remedy against the agent. we think we should be setting up a bad precedent if we endeavoured to relieve him from the consequences of the act of his agent. the case is very similar to that of har prasad v. abdul rahman weekly notes 1905 p. 44, in which this court upheld an order of the lower court refusing to restore an appeal under analogous circumstances. we reject this application with costs. counsel's fee for the appellant,.....
Judgment:

Piggott and Walsh, JJ.

1. This is a respondent's application under Order XLI, Rule 21, of the Code of Civil Procedure, for the re-hearing of an appeal which was decided ex parte by a Bench of this Court on the 29th of June last. The affidavit on which the application is based is to the effect that counsel had been duly instructed on behalf of the respondent by one Nathu Ram, to whom the respondent had entrusted the business of looking after the appeal on his behalf and seeing that it was duly prosecuted. Subsequently Nathu Ram withdrew the instructions, and counsel was thus unable to appear. We think that the applicant is really seeking relief on the ground of misconduct or neglect of duty on the part of his own agent. He has no doubt a remedy against the agent. We think we should be setting up a bad precedent if we endeavoured to relieve him from the consequences of the act of his agent. The case is very similar to that of Har Prasad v. Abdul Rahman Weekly Notes 1905 p. 44, in which this Court upheld an order of the lower court refusing to restore an appeal under analogous circumstances. We reject this application with costs. Counsel's fee for the appellant, opposite party, may be valued at twenty rupees.


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