Skip to content


Hira Lal Vs. Jhunni Lal - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtAllahabad
Decided On
Judge
Reported in65Ind.Cas.967
AppellantHira Lal
RespondentJhunni Lal
Excerpt:
civil procedure code (act v of 1908), order ix, rule 13, order xliii, rule 1(d) - ex parte decree by munsif having small cause court powers--application to set aside ex parts decree rejected by munsif having no powers--appeal. - .....have the ex parte decree set aside under order ix, rule 13. this application was refused by the munsif upon grounds to which it is not necessary to refer. an appeal from the order of the munsif was preferred to the district judge and he held that no appeal lay. i think the view of the learned judge was right. an appeal from an order passed under order ix, rule 13 is maintainable under order xliii, rule 1(d) in a case 'open to appeal.' this was not a case 'open to appeal' inasmuch as the decree was passed by an officer exercising small cause court jurisdiction, whose decree was final. therefore, this was not a case open to appeal and, consequently, no appeal lay from the order passed by the present munsif under order ix, rule 13. this is not one of those cases in which execution.....
Judgment:

P.C. Banerji, J.

1. This is an application for revision of an order of the District Judge refusing to entertain an appeal on the ground that no appeal lay to him. It appears that the suit in this case was instituted in the Court of a Munsif who exercised Small Cause Court powers. He decided the suit and made an ex parte decree which was final. He was subsequently transferred, and his successor was an officer who was not invested with the jurisdiction of a Court of Small Causes An application was made to him to have the ex parte decree set aside under Order IX, Rule 13. This application was refused by the Munsif upon grounds to which it is not necessary to refer. An appeal from the order of the Munsif was preferred to the District Judge and he held that no appeal lay. I think the view of the learned Judge was right. An appeal from an order passed under Order IX, Rule 13 is maintainable under Order XLIII, Rule 1(d) in a case 'open to appeal.' This was not a case 'open to appeal' inasmuch as the decree was passed by an officer exercising Small Cause Court jurisdiction, whose decree was final. Therefore, this was not a case open to appeal and, consequently, no appeal lay from the order passed by the present Munsif under Order IX, Rule 13. This is not one of those cases in which execution proceedings taken in a Court the presiding officer of which had ceased to have Small Cause Court jurisdiction were held to be appealable. The application is dismissed with costs.


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