Skip to content


Ram Anand Vs. Musammat Sheo Bala and anr. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtAllahabad
Decided On
Judge
Reported in63Ind.Cas.809
AppellantRam Anand
RespondentMusammat Sheo Bala and anr.
Excerpt:
civil procedure code (act v of 1908), section 115 - revision--remedy, other, open to applicant--high court, whether will interfere specific relief act (i of 1877), section 9. - .....of the consistent practice of this court not to interfere in revision where other remedies are open to a party. the suit was brought by the opposite party in the court below for possession of property under section 9 of the specific relief act. it has been decreed. the defendant has come here in revision under section 115 of the civil procedure code, urging that the court below acted illegally in that it debarred him from placing on record the evidence of a witness who could have established a hit of documentary evidence sufficient to disprove the plaintiffs title. it is pointed out that the applicant has her remedy by a regular suit on the basis of title and that, therefore, in view of the ruling of this court in jwala v. ganga prasad 30 a. 331 : 5 a.l.j. 297 : a.w.n. (1908) 142,.....
Judgment:

Tudball, J.

1. A preliminary objection is taken that the revision is not entertain able in view of the consistent practice of this Court not to interfere in revision where other remedies are open to a party. The suit was brought by the opposite party in the Court below for possession of property under Section 9 of the Specific Relief Act. It has been decreed. The defendant has come here in revision under Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code, urging that the Court below acted illegally in that it debarred him from placing on record the evidence of a witness who could have established a hit of documentary evidence sufficient to disprove the plaintiffs title. It is pointed out that the applicant has her remedy by a regular suit on the basis of title and that, therefore, in view of the ruling of this Court in Jwala v. Ganga Prasad 30 A. 331 : 5 A.L.J. 297 : A.W.N. (1908) 142, this application in revision should not be entertained. In that; case also the application for revision arose out of a suit which was also brought under Section 9 of the Specific Relief Act for recovery of possession of a house. The Division Bench before whom that case same remarked as follows: 'We should point out that the application in revision was not a proper remedy for the defendant under the circumstances. It has been laid down were and over again that the Court will not interfere in revision where other remedies are open to a party. It was open to the defendant to institute a suit for a declaration of his title and for possession, and he is not debarred from doing so by the decree passed under Section 9 of the Specific Relief Act.'

2. The learned Judges were referred to the ruling reported as Sheo Prasad Singh v. Kastura Kuar 10 A. 119 : A.W.N. (1888) 26 : 6 Ind. Dec. (N.S.) 80, This being a ruling of a Division Bench is, binding upon me sitting singly and I am, therefore, bound to hold that the present applicant has mistaken his remedy and that he should seek his rights by a regular suit on the basis of title. The application in revision is, therefore, disallowed. Parties will bear their own costs.


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