Skip to content


Kanhaiya Singh and anr. Vs. Tirmal Singh - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtAllahabad
Decided On
Judge
Reported in(1923)ILR45All535
AppellantKanhaiya Singh and anr.
RespondentTirmal Singh
Excerpt:
letters patent, section 10 - review of judgment--no appeal from order rejecting application. - - therefore, according to the code of civil procedure, the order complained of in the present case is unappealable......39 all. 191 and in the recent case of gajadhar prasad v. nawab maulvi muhammad abdul majid letters patent appeal no. 81 of 1921 decided on the 9th of february, 1923. in all these cases it was held that an appeal would not lie tinder the letters patent. the principle applied by this court in these cases equally applies to the present case. our attention was drawn to the case of sadiq ali v. anwar ali (1922) i.l.r. 45 all. 60. that case is distinguishable from the present and we do not consider that in that case any rule of law was laid down contrary to that enunciated in the rulings to which we have referred. in any case we are bound by the decision of the full bench reported in i.l.r., 1.4 all., 226, and following that and the other cases to winch we have referred, we must hold that no.....
Judgment:

Pramada Charan Banerji and Gokul Prasad, JJ.

1. In our judgment no appeal lies in this case under Section 10 of the Letters Patent. An appeal preferred to this Court was dismissed by a learned Judge. An application was made to have that order set aside and that application was treated as an application for review of judgment. The learned Judge rejected the application for review and from his order rejecting the application for review of judgment this appeal under the Letters Patent has been preferred, in Order XLVII, Rule 7, of the Code of Civil Procedure, it is provided that no appeal lies from an order rejecting an application for review of judgment and under Order XLIII, Rule 1, there is no provision for an appeal from an order rejecting such an application. Therefore, according to the Code of Civil Procedure, the order complained of in the present case is unappealable. It is contended that Section 10 of the Letters Patent is wide enough to allow an appeal in a case of this kind. The whole question of appeals under the Letters Patent was considered by the Full Bench in the case of Muhammad Naim-ullah Khan v. Ihsan-ullah Khan (1892) I. L.R. 14 All. 226. The same point was considered in Piari Lal v. Madan Lal (1916) I.L.R. 39 All. 191 and in the recent case of Gajadhar Prasad v. Nawab Maulvi Muhammad Abdul Majid Letters Patent Appeal No. 81 of 1921 decided on the 9th of February, 1923. In all these cases it was held that an appeal would not lie Tinder the Letters Patent. The principle applied by this Court in these cases equally applies to the present case. Our attention was drawn to the case of Sadiq Ali v. Anwar Ali (1922) I.L.R. 45 All. 60. That case is distinguishable from the present and we do not consider that in that case any rule of law was laid down contrary to that enunciated in the rulings to which we have referred. In any case we are bound by the decision of the Full Bench reported in I.L.R., 1.4 All., 226, and following that and the other cases to winch we have referred, we must hold that no appeal lies. This appeal is accordingly dismissed.


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