Skip to content


Kameshar Dayal Vs. Misri Lal and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtAllahabad
Decided On
Judge
Reported inAIR1917All397(1); 40Ind.Cas.336
AppellantKameshar Dayal
RespondentMisri Lal and ors.
Excerpt:
.....decree of the 21st of august. we are of opinion that although the court below might, in the exercise of its inherent jurisdiction, as we said yesterday, restore the application, there is no appeal against its refusal, but following what we said yesterday, if we were satisfied that there is reason to think that there has been a serious miscarriage of justice, we might have admitted the case as a revision and allowed it to be argued on that footing. we are not satisfied for many reasons that there has been a miscarriage of justice, and it is sufficient to say that the absence of the party now applying from the application of the 26th of november, which was the reason for its refusal, is to this moment unexplained......from the application of the 26th of november, which was the reason for its refusal, is to this moment unexplained. under these circumstances the court cannot grant a revision. the appeal must be dismissed with costs.
Judgment:

1. In this case we are pf opinion that there is no right of appeal. The order complained of is an order, dated the 14th of December 1915, refusing to restore an application which had already been dismissed on the 26th of November, which application was to set aside an appellate decree of the 21st of August. We are of opinion that although the Court below might, in the exercise of its inherent jurisdiction, as we said yesterday, restore the application, there is no appeal against its refusal, but following what we said yesterday, if we were satisfied that there is reason to think that there has been a serious miscarriage of justice, we might have admitted the case as a revision and allowed it to be argued on that footing. We are not satisfied for many reasons that there has been a miscarriage of justice, and it is sufficient to say that the absence of the party now applying from the application of the 26th of November, which was the reason for its refusal, is to this moment unexplained. Under these circumstances the Court cannot grant a revision. The appeal must be dismissed with costs.


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