Skip to content


Thakur Karanpal Singh Vs. Bhima Mal and anr. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectProperty
CourtAllahabad
Decided On
Judge
Reported in5Ind.Cas.423
AppellantThakur Karanpal Singh
RespondentBhima Mal and anr.
Excerpt:
agra tenancy act (i of 1901) - order dismissing a suit for default--appeal. - - the tenancy act starts with a section in which it clearly lays down that 'no appeal shall lie from any decree or order passed by any court under this act except as hereinafter provided'.it then continues to deal with appeals and it lays down seriatim where an appeal lies from a decree and from an order;.....either a decree or an order unless the statute gives it. the tenancy act starts with a section in which it clearly lays down that 'no appeal shall lie from any decree or order passed by any court under this act except as hereinafter provided'. it then continues to deal with appeals and it lays down seriatim where an appeal lies from a decree and from an order; where it lies from a decree only and where it lies from an order only. there is no doubt that the legislature did take the matter into, consideration and put into separate classes 'decrees and orders'. this being so we dismiss the appeal with costs including in this court fees on the higher scale.
Judgment:

1. The plaintiff who is the appellant in this case filed a suit in the rent Court for profits. On the date fixed for hearing neither the plaintiff nor his mukhtar were present in Court and the case was struck off the file in default. The appellant then went in appeal to the Additional District Judge of Aligarh and that Court held that no appeal lay. 'The Appellant' it observed 'was attempting to appeal from an order under the Tenancy Act of 1901 and that Act gave no right of appeal from an order'. The appellant comes here in second appeal and contends that an appeal did lie. We have heard a long and careful argument addressed to us, by the learned Vakil for the appellant, but the matter seems to us to be covered by the previous decisions of this Court. Indeed there seems to us no need for any further decision on the point. The Tenancy Act of 1901 is an Act which contains in itself an interpretation clause in which some twenty and more expressions used in the Act are interpreted. No place is given in that section to the word 'order'. Had it been the intention of the Legislature to enact that certain orders would have the effect and would be liable to the various provisions relating to decrees, there would be no difficulty in placing the word 'order' in the interpretation clause and defining it more or less in the same way that it was defined in the Civil Procedure Code, 1882. We must, therefore, take it that the word 'order' when it occurs in the Act confers only those privileges on the holder of the 'order' and is subject to only those limitations which in that Act are expressly said to attach to an order. Moreover there is no right of appeal from either a decree or an order unless the statute gives it. The Tenancy Act starts with a section in which it clearly lays down that 'no appeal shall lie from any decree or order passed by any Court under this Act except as hereinafter provided'. It then continues to deal with appeals and it lays down seriatim where an appeal lies from a decree and from an order; where it lies from a decree only and where it lies from an order only. There is no doubt that the Legislature did take the matter into, consideration and put into separate classes 'decrees and orders'. This being so we dismiss the appeal with costs including in this Court fees on the higher scale.


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