Skip to content


Sundar Singh Vs. Doru Shankar and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtAllahabad High Court
Decided On
Judge
Reported in(1898)ILR20All78
AppellantSundar Singh
RespondentDoru Shankar and ors.
Excerpt:
civil procedure code, section 622 - revision--erroneous decision on point of limitation. - - we are clearly of opinion that that order was wrong and in contravention of section 230 of the code. 17 all, 422. consequently we are reluctantly compelled to hold that we cannot entertain this application under section 622 of the code of civil procedure to revise an order which in our opinion was bad in law, as the court had jurisdiction to consider whether section 230 of the code did not apply......the decree-holder applied to the court to which the certificate had been sent for execution of the decree. execution was in fact barred by that time by reason of section 230 of could not be applied, as the application to transmit the decree had been made within time. as a matter of fact the court was wrong. the making of an application to trausmit the decree and the making of an order thereon did not suspend the operation of section 230, the court made an order for execution. we are clearly of opinion that that order was wrong and in contravention of section 230 of the code. but we are unable to distinguish the principle to be applied in this case from the principle applied by their lordships of the privy council in amir hassan khan v. sheo baksh singh i.l.r. 11 cal. 6, and which was.....
Judgment:

John Edge, C.J. and Banerji, J.

1. An application was made to transfer a decree for execution to another Court. An order for transfer was made and the certificate was duly transmitted. Thereupon the decree-holder applied to the Court to which the certificate had been sent for execution of the decree. Execution was in fact barred by that time by reason of Section 230 of could not be applied, as the application to transmit the decree had been made within time. As a matter of fact the Court was wrong. The making of an application to trausmit the decree and the making of an order thereon did not suspend the operation of Section 230, The Court made an order for execution. We are clearly of opinion that that order was wrong and in contravention of Section 230 of the Code. But we are unable to distinguish the principle to be applied in this case from the principle applied by their Lordships of the Privy Council in Amir Hassan Khan v. Sheo Baksh Singh I.L.R. 11 Cal. 6, and which was also applied by a Bench of this Court in Sarman Lal v. Khuban I.L.R. 17 All, 422. Consequently we are reluctantly compelled to hold that we cannot entertain this application under Section 622 of the Code of Civil Procedure to revise an order which in our opinion was bad in law, as the Court had jurisdiction to consider whether Section 230 of the Code did not apply. We dismiss this application, but we make no order as to costs.


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