Skip to content


Jhanday Lal Vs. Sarman Lal - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtAllahabad High Court
Decided On
Judge
Reported in(1899)ILR21All291
AppellantJhanday Lal
RespondentSarman Lal
Excerpt:
.....procedure code, section 588 (24) - appeal from order made under section 485--remand--such order of remand not appealable--civil procedure code, section 562. - 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..........is the subject-matter of the appeal before us. the last clause of section 588 provides that orders passed in appeal under that section shall be final. the order appealed from is an order passed under section 588, and therefore it is final according to the provision referred to above. it is true that section 588 allows an appeal from an order passed under section 562. but the order of remand from which an appeal is allowable must be an order which was not passed under section 588. the last paragraph of the section must be read as controlling the whole section and as barring a second appeal, where an appellate court has made an order, whether for dismissing the appeal or decreeing the appeal or remanding the case before it. this view is supported by the ruling of the calcutta high court in.....
Judgment:

Banerji and Aikman, JJ.

1. The preliminary objection raised by Mr. Ghulam Mujtaba that no appeal lies, must prevail. An order was made against the respondent for attachment before judgment under Section 485 of the Code of Civil Procedure. An appeal was preferred from that order under Clause (24) of Section 588 of the Code, and the Lower Appellate Court made an order of remand under Section 562. This order of remand is the subject-matter of the appeal before us. The last clause of Section 588 provides that orders passed in appeal under that section shall be final. The order appealed from is an order passed under Section 588, and therefore it is final according to the provision referred to above. It is true that Section 588 allows an appeal from an order passed under Section 562. But the order of remand from which an appeal is allowable must be an order which was not passed under Section 588. The last paragraph of the section must be read as controlling the whole section and as barring a second appeal, where an appellate Court has made an order, whether for dismissing the appeal or decreeing the appeal or remanding the case before it. This view is supported by the ruling of the Calcutta High Court in Mathura Nath Ghose v. Nobin Chandra Kundu Biswas (1897) I.L.R. 24 Cal. 774, with which we entirely agree. We dismiss the appeal with costs.


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