Skip to content


Bandhan Singh Vs. Solhu and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtAllahabad High Court
Decided On
Judge
Reported in(1886)ILR8All191
AppellantBandhan Singh
RespondentSolhu and ors.
Excerpt:
'decree' - order rejecting application under civil procedure code, section 44, rule a, and returning plaint--appeal--civil procedure code, sections 2, 44. - - it was made on the ground that the plaintiff bad joined a cause of action with a suit for recovery of immoveable property......of immoveable property.2. accordingly the plaintiff filed an application to the subordinate judge for leave to join the cause of action. the subordinate judge refused leave, and returned the plaint with directions that the petitioner should institute two separate suits for the recovery of the house and the grain in the court of the munsif of ghaziabad.3. the plaintiff (petitioner) appealed from the order refusing leave under section 44(a) to the judge, and the judge dismissed it on the ground that no appeal lay from the order to him.4. the plaintiff has now appealed to this court to revise the orders of the courts below under section 622 of the civil procedure code.5. there was no appeal to the judge from the order of the subordinate judge under any of the provisions in section.....
Judgment:

Oldfield and Tyreell, J.

1. This is an application under Section 622 of the Civil Procedure Code. The petitioner instituted a suit by filing a plaint in the Subordinate Judge's Court, in which he claimed to recover possession of a house, together with some grain which was stored in it. The plaint was registered. Subsequently to its registration, it appears to have been considered that the claim for grain could not be joined in the same suit with the claim for possession of the house under the terms of Section 44(a), by which no cause of action shall, unless with the leave of the Court, be joined with a suit for the recovery of immoveable property.

2. Accordingly the plaintiff filed an application to the Subordinate Judge for leave to join the cause of action. The Subordinate Judge refused leave, and returned the plaint with directions that the petitioner should institute two separate suits for the recovery of the house and the grain in the Court of the Munsif of Ghaziabad.

3. The plaintiff (petitioner) appealed from the order refusing leave under Section 44(a) to the Judge, and the Judge dismissed it on the ground that no appeal lay from the order to him.

4. The plaintiff has now appealed to this Court to revise the orders of the Courts below under Section 622 of the Civil Procedure Code.

5. There was no appeal to the Judge from the order of the Subordinate Judge under any of the provisions in Section 588 of the Civil Procedure Code. He therefore rightly dismissed the appeal, which had been instituted as an appeal from an order, and this Court cannot interfere in revision with his order. Nor, however irregular the Subordinate Judge's order may be, is this Court empowered to interfere with it under Section 622.

6. The order of the Subordinate Judge is substantially an order rejecting the plaint. It was made on the ground that the plaintiff bad joined a cause of action with a suit for recovery of immoveable property. This may be a misapplication of Section 44(a); but the effect of the order was to reject the plaint, and such an order is a decree, with reference to the definition in Section 2 and is appealable as a decree to the Judge, and in consequence an appeal lies in the case to the High Court, and that Court cannot interfere under Section 622.

7. On these grounds the application is dismissed with costs.


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