Skip to content


Hira Prasad Vs. Beni Madho - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtAllahabad High Court
Decided On
Case NumberCivil Revn. Nos. 797, 798 and 800 of 1960
Judge
Reported inAIR1963All109
ActsProvincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887 - Sections 25
AppellantHira Prasad
RespondentBeni Madho
Appellant AdvocateD.D. Seth, Adv.
Respondent AdvocateH.P. Dubey, Adv.
DispositionRevisions dismissed
Excerpt:
civil - section 25 of provincial small cause act, 1887 - whether the judge sitting in the revision can act like a judge sitting in the appellate court - the assessment of evidence of small cause court is wrong or finding is perverse - the judge has every right to give a judgment. - - it may be ordinarily correct that a judge sitting in revision cannot act like an appellate court and cannot reassess, the evidence once assessed by the small cause court; 3. all the three revisions must therefore fail......of the learned additional dist. judge of allahabad who in revision upset the findings of the judge, small cause court, on the ground that he had not exercised the jurisdiction vested in him correctly and the findings were quite perverse.2. the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner in all these cases is that the learned additional district judge had no jurisdiction to substitute his own judgment and to go into questions of fact. this argument has no force in a case where the findings of the judge, small cause court, have been found to be perverse and not in accordance with law. it may be ordinarily correct that a judge sitting in revision cannot act like an appellate court and cannot reassess, the evidence once assessed by the small cause court; but if the assessment of.....
Judgment:
ORDER

Mithan Lal, J.

1. These three civil revisions filed by the defendant arise out of the same judgment of the learned Additional Dist. Judge of Allahabad who in revision upset the findings of the judge, small cause court, on the ground that he had not exercised the jurisdiction vested in him correctly and the findings were quite perverse.

2. The argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner in all these cases is that the learned Additional District Judge had no jurisdiction to substitute his own judgment and to go into questions of fact. This argument has no force in a case where the findings of the judge, small cause court, have been found to be perverse and not in accordance with law. It may be ordinarily correct that a judge sitting in revision cannot act like an appellate court and cannot reassess, the evidence once assessed by the small cause court; but if the assessment of the evidence is wrong or the approach is wrong or the finding is perverse, the judge sitting in revision has every right to give a judgment after correctly assessing the evidence. The argument put forward by the learned counsel therefore has no force.

3. All the three revisions must therefore fail. Theyare hereby dismissed with costs.


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