Skip to content


Jadunandan Misra and ors. Vs. Sheopahal - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtAllahabad
Decided On
Reported inAIR1929All272
AppellantJadunandan Misra and ors.
RespondentSheopahal
Excerpt:
- .....when i admitted this revision, i overlooked the omission of the applicants to approach the sessions judge first. in future the trial clerk is directed to note when an application for revision is made direct to this court without first approaching the district magistrate or the court of sessions. as a rule there is a practice at the bar to certify in the grounds of revision that application was made to the district judge or to the sessions judge and had not proved successful. if the trial clerk makes a note, the attention of the judge would at once be drawn to the omission.2. it has been the settled practice of this court to refuse to hear an application for revision, even after an ex-parte admission of the application, when the applicant has not first applied to the district.....
Judgment:

Dalal, J.

1. I am sorry to disappoint Mr. Goyel who I see has come prepare with a large number of law reports. When I admitted this revision, I overlooked the omission of the applicants to approach the Sessions Judge first. In future the trial clerk is directed to note when an application for revision is made direct to this Court without first approaching the District Magistrate or the Court of Sessions. As a rule there is a practice at the Bar to certify in the grounds of revision that application was made to the District Judge or to the Sessions Judge and had not proved successful. If the trial clerk makes a note, the attention of the Judge would at once be drawn to the omission.

2. It has been the settled practice of this Court to refuse to hear an application for revision, even after an ex-parte admission of the application, when the applicant has not first applied to the District Magistrate or to the Sessions Judge for revision. The practice was laid down by a Bench Judgment of this Court in Sharif Ahmad v. Qabal Singh (A.I.R. 1921 All. 30). This practice was followed by Kendall, J., in Nathe Singh v. Emperor : AIR1927All829 . When a settled practice has been observed in this Court for at least eight years, it is not advisable to vary it though there may not be any rule of statute law on the subject. It appears that in the Calcutta High Court also such a rule is observed: see Rash Behari Saha v. Phani Bhusan Haldar A.I.R. 1921 Cal. 76. This application is dismissed, but the dismissal will not prevent the applicants if they so desire from approaching the District Magistrate or the Sessions Judge.


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