Skip to content


The Maharaja of Bhartpur and ors. Vs. Bhagwan Das - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtAllahabad High Court
Decided On
Judge
Reported in(1895)ILR17All286
AppellantThe Maharaja of Bhartpur and ors.
RespondentBhagwan Das
Excerpt:
appeal - order rejecting application for suit to abate--civil procedure code, section 366. - 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..........effect. on the 18th of july 1894, an application was presented on behalf of the defendants alleging that the application of the 26th of march 1894, was an application made by a person who was not authorized to apply and asking that the suit should abate. the court refused this application made by the defendants arid allowed the suit to proceed; and it is from this last order that the present appeal is brought. it is contended that the order falls within the second paragraph of section 366 of the code of civil procedure, and is therefore appealable under clause 18 of section 588. we cannot allow this contention. the application of the defendants was not an application contemplated by the second paragraph of section 366. no appeal lies, and, without pronouncing on the first preliminary.....
Judgment:

Knox and Aikman, JJ.

1. Upon this appeal being called on for hearing, two preliminary objections were raised by the learned vakil who appears in the case on behalf of the present ruling Chief of Bhartpur, one of the respondents; plaintiff in the Court of First Instance. The first is to the effect that no copy of the decree was filed with the memorandum of appeal and none has been filed up to the present date. The second is to the effect that no appeal lies at all.

2. It appears that the suit was institutes by the late Maharaja of Bhartpur. He died on the 12th of December 1890, while the suit was still pending. On the 26th of March 1894, the present Maharaja applied to the Court to have his name entered on the record in the place of the deceased plaintiff, and an order was passed to that effect. On the 18th of July 1894, an application was presented on behalf of the defendants alleging that the application of the 26th of March 1894, was an application made by a person who was not authorized to apply and asking that the suit should abate. The Court refused this application made by the defendants arid allowed the suit to proceed; and it is from this last order that the present appeal is brought. It is contended that the order falls within the second paragraph of Section 366 of the Code of Civil Procedure, and is therefore appealable under Clause 18 of Section 588. We cannot allow this contention. The application of the defendants was not an application contemplated by the second paragraph of Section 366. No appeal lies, and, without pronouncing on the first preliminary objection and acting upon the Second, we dismiss this appeal with costs.


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