Skip to content


Lakshmi Iron and Steel Manufacturing Co. Ltd. Vs. Firm Radhey Lal-manni Lal - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtAllahabad
Decided On
Reported inAIR1938All639
AppellantLakshmi Iron and Steel Manufacturing Co. Ltd.
RespondentFirm Radhey Lal-manni Lal
Excerpt:
- .....applicant was sued by the opposite party for recovery of certain sum of money in the court of the civil judge of cawnpore. the defendant pleaded inter alia that the court had no territorial jurisdiction as the cause of action arose outside cawnpore. an application was made on behalf of the applicant to the learned civil judge to decide the question of jurisdiction before deciding other issues involved in the suit. the learned civil judge did not accede to the prayer of the applicant. on 12th may 1938, the applicant moved this court to interfere with the order of the court below under the provisions of section 115, civil p.c., and section 224, government of india act. this application was ultimately rejected on 17th august 1938. the present application has been made under section 205,.....
Judgment:
ORDER

Mohammad Ismail, J.

1. The facts that have given rise to this application may be briefly stated. The applicant was sued by the opposite party for recovery of certain sum of money in the Court of the Civil Judge of Cawnpore. The defendant pleaded inter alia that the Court had no territorial jurisdiction as the cause of action arose outside Cawnpore. An application was made on behalf of the applicant to the learned Civil Judge to decide the question of jurisdiction before deciding other issues involved in the suit. The learned Civil Judge did not accede to the prayer of the applicant. On 12th May 1938, the applicant moved this Court to interfere with the order of the Court below under the provisions of Section 115, Civil P.C., and Section 224, Government of India Act. This application was ultimately rejected on 17th August 1938. The present application has been made under Section 205, Government of India Act, praying that this Court of its own motion may grant a certificate for appeal to the Federal Court. Under Section 205(1) an appeal lies to the Federal Court if the High Court certifies that the case involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the Act or any order in Council made thereunder. The question for consideration is whether the present application comes within the purview of the aforesaid Section. Learned Counsel concedes that any decision under Section 115, Civil P.C., will not come under this Section. He however contends that as the interpretation of Section 224, Government of India Act, is also in question in this case it is a fit case to be certified.

2. I have heard learned Counsel at some length and given due weight to his able argument and I have no hesitation in holding that it is not a fit case to be certified as no question of interpretation of Section 224 is involved. The only question for consideration before this Court was whether the learned Civil Judge had exercised judicial discretion in refusing the trial of the issue of jurisdiction before deciding other issues. This is governed by Order 14, Rule 2, Civil P.C. The learned Civil Judge for the reasons given in his judgment held that it was not possible to dispose of the issue of jurisdiction without recording evidence on the point and in his opinion it was undesirable to record evidence of witnesses piecemeal. In coming to this decision, the learned Judge exercised a discretion which undoubtedly was vested in him by law. It is not the function of this Court under Section 224, Government of India Act, to interfere with judicial orders of the subordinate Courts. Section 224(1) lays down matters in which the High Court has been given power of superintendence. Sub-section (2) of the Section lays down:

Nothing in this Section shall be construed as giving to a High Court any jurisdiction to question any judgment of any inferior Court which is not otherwise subject to appeal or revision.

3. Learned Counsel contends that the subsection is not applicable to this case because the order of the Court was merely an interlocutory order and not a judgment. In my opinion there is no reason to interpret the expression 'judgment' in such a circumscribed manner. The expression 'judgment' means the statement given by the Judge of the grounds of a decree or order : Section 3(9), Civil P.C. This definition will apply to the order in question. The order of the Court below was liable to be revised by this Court under Section 115, Civil P.C., and this is the only power that could be exercised by this Court. Under the present Act it is not contemplated that the High Court would interfere in proceedings in any manner except that which is provided by the Civil Procedure Code or the Letters Patent. It would be most unfortunate if this Court interfered in judicial proceedings outside the powers vested in it by law. In my opinion no question of interpretation of any Section of the Government of India Act or any order in Council made there, under is in question in the present case and therefore no certificate can be granted. The application is rejected.


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