Skip to content


Sarman Lal Vs. Khuban and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtAllahabad High Court
Decided On
Judge
Reported in(1895)ILR17All422
AppellantSarman Lal
RespondentKhuban and ors.
Excerpt:
.....small cause courts act), section 25--civil procedure code, section 622--hounds upon which an application for revision under section 25 of act no. ix of 1867 will be entertained. - 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..........in i.l.r. 11 cal. 6. it appears to us that we have no clear and satisfactory guidance from the decided cases as to what was held by this court to be the scope of section 622 before the clear and definite ruling in that case. it seems quite certain that there was no consistent course of decision in this court. abundance of rulings can be found, some entertaining wider and some entertaining narrower views of the limitations imposed by that section. we consider the closer and stricter interpretation to be most in accord with the intention of the legislature, and we therefore in our discretion refuse to try in revision, and to reopen the questions of law and fact which have in the exercise of its jurisdiction boon decided upon evidence by a court whose decision upon such a point has been.....
Judgment:

Blair and Burkitt, JJ.

1. This application for revision is based upon the allegation that the Small Cause Court, which is the Court of original jurisdiction, bad tried and wrongly decided a question of limitation. We are asked now-in this application under Section 25 of Act IX of 1887 to re-open that question in revision. Our attention has been called to the Full Bench judgment of this Court in this case in answer to a reference by one of our number. It was there argued that Section 25 of the Small Cause Court Act was not simply co-extensive with Section 622 of the Code of Civil Procedure. We all were of opinion that in the exercise of our discretion we ought to apply to cases brought before us under Section 25 of Act IX of 1887 the general principle embodied in Section 622 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The ruling of the Court was itself to this effect, that the considerations to be applied to such an application for revision as this did not differ materially from those applicable under Section 622, and which were applied before the decision of the case Amir Hassan Khan v. Sheo Baksh Singh by their Lordships of the Privy Council. The case was reported in I.L.R. 11 Cal. 6. It appears to us that we have no clear and satisfactory guidance from the decided cases as to what was held by this Court to be the scope of Section 622 before the clear and definite ruling in that case. It seems quite certain that there was no consistent course of decision in this Court. Abundance of rulings can be found, some entertaining wider and some entertaining narrower views of the limitations imposed by that section. We consider the closer and stricter interpretation to be most in accord with the intention of the Legislature, and we therefore in our discretion refuse to try in revision, and to reopen the questions of law and fact which have in the exercise of its jurisdiction boon decided upon evidence by a Court whose decision upon such a point has been made final by law. We reject the application.


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