Skip to content


Madan Mohan Gargh Vs. Munna Lal and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectProperty
CourtAllahabad
Decided On
Reported inAIR1928All497
AppellantMadan Mohan Gargh
RespondentMunna Lal and ors.
Excerpt:
- - on 14th february 1928 the parties put in a petition before the judge of that court to the effect that the court may pass any decision it liked after inspecting the locality in the presence of parties and their pleaders. in that case as no permission of government was obtained the judicial officer cannot act as an arbitrator, and this court will have jurisdiction to transfer the suit from his court if this court liked to do so......bench of two judges.2. this is an application for transfer of a certain suit from the court of the additional subordinate judge of agra. on 14th february 1928 the parties put in a petition before the judge of that court to the effect that the court may pass any decision it liked after inspecting the locality in the presence of parties and their pleaders. subsequently the plaintiff madan mohan gargh was dissatisfied with certain actions taken by the additional subordinate judge, and applied to this court for transfer of the case. the question is whether such an application can lie. it is argued on behalf of the opposite party that the application of 14th february 1928 was in the nature of a compromise, and, therefore, the suit must be decided in accordance with the terms of the.....
Judgment:
ORDER

Dalal, J.

1. I certify this to be an application which shall be heard by a Bench of two Judges.

2. This is an application for transfer of a certain suit from the Court of the Additional Subordinate Judge of Agra. On 14th February 1928 the parties put in a petition before the Judge of that Court to the effect that the Court may pass any decision it liked after inspecting the locality in the presence of parties and their pleaders. Subsequently the plaintiff Madan Mohan Gargh was dissatisfied with certain actions taken by the Additional Subordinate Judge, and applied to this Court for transfer of the case. The question is whether such an application can lie. It is argued on behalf of the opposite party that the application of 14th February 1928 was in the nature of a compromise, and, therefore, the suit must be decided in accordance with the terms of the compromise, and cannot be transferred to any other Court. A Bench ruling of Sita Ram v. Piari Lal was quoted.

3. If the application is a compromise, the argument will be sound. On the other hand, the arrangement may be interpreted into one under which the Additional Subordinate Judge was appointed an arbitrator. In that case as no permission of Government was obtained the Judicial Officer cannot act as an arbitrator, and this Court will have jurisdiction to transfer the suit from his Court if this Court liked to do so. The question is not free from difficult, and personally I am not in favour of Courts accepting an agreement of parties leaving the matter entirely to the Court's discretion. The record of the suit shall also be sent for.


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