Skip to content


Manna Lal and ors. Vs. Ram Gopal and anr. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtAllahabad
Decided On
Case NumberApplication No. 145 of 1948
Judge
Reported inAIR1950All205
ActsCode of Civil Procedure (CPC) , 1908 - Sections 115
AppellantManna Lal and ors.
RespondentRam Gopal and anr.
Appellant AdvocateB.P. Misra, Adv.
Respondent AdvocateR.N. Shukla, Adv. for No. 1 and ;S. Kalbe Mustafa, Adv. for Nos. 1 and 2
DispositionApplication dismissed
Excerpt:
- .....the applicants have now come up in revision.2. a preliminary objection has been taken that no revision lies because that decision on the preliminary issue of jurisdiction does not amount to a 'case decided' within the meaning of section 115, civil p. c. this contention is sound and is supported by the full bench decision of the allahabad high court in budhu lal v. mewa ram, 43 all. 564: (a. i. r. (8) 1921 all. 1). the same view was taken also by a bench of the late avadh chief court in mazhar jamil v. lala babu ram, appln. no. 29 of 1948.3. the revision is, therefore, not maintainable and is accordingly dismissed with costs.
Judgment:
ORDER

Chandiramani, J.

1. The opposite-parties filed a suit for recovery of possession of certain property alleging that the property had been mortgaged with the applicants and the entire money had been paid off from the usufruct of the property. The applicants raised an objection that the suit was not triable by the civil Court but it should have been filed before the revenue Court. This preliminary issue of jurisdiction was tried by the learned munsif, the trial Court, and be has come to the conclusion that he has jurisdiction to entertain the suit. It is against this decision that the applicants have now come up in revision.

2. A preliminary objection has been taken that no revision lies because that decision on the preliminary issue of jurisdiction does not amount to a 'case decided' within the meaning of Section 115, Civil P. C. This contention is sound and is supported by the Full Bench decision of the Allahabad High Court in Budhu Lal v. Mewa Ram, 43 ALL. 564: (A. I. R. (8) 1921 ALL. 1). The same view was taken also by a Bench of the late Avadh Chief Court in Mazhar Jamil v. Lala Babu Ram, Appln. No. 29 of 1948.

3. The revision is, therefore, not maintainable and is accordingly dismissed with costs.


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