Skip to content


Bhup Singh Vs. Fateh Singh and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtAllahabad
Decided On
Reported inAIR1931All192
AppellantBhup Singh
RespondentFateh Singh and ors.
Excerpt:
- - the order therefore of the munsif was a perfectly right order......of the learned district judge of agra refusing to entertain an appeal against an order of the munsif of fatehabad returning an application for presentation to the proper court. the application in question was under order 34, rule 6, to recover the balance due from the defendant to the plaintiff under a certain mortgage bond. that mortgage bond had formed the subject matter in a suit before the subordinate judge of agra. subsequently, the plaintiff had brought a suit in the court of the munsif of fatehabad on the basis of a charge which he alleged came into existence and obtained a decree in that court against certain property. but the existence of a charge on the property in fatehabad does not give the munsif of fatehabad jurisdiction to entertain an application under order 34, rule.....
Judgment:

Bennet, J.

1. This is an application in revision against an order of the learned District Judge of Agra refusing to entertain an appeal against an order of the Munsif of Fatehabad returning an application for presentation to the proper Court. The application in question was under Order 34, Rule 6, to recover the balance due from the defendant to the plaintiff under a certain mortgage bond. That mortgage bond had formed the subject matter in a suit before the Subordinate Judge of Agra. Subsequently, the plaintiff had brought a suit in the Court of the Munsif of Fatehabad on the basis of a charge which he alleged came into existence and obtained a decree in that Court against certain property. But the existence of a charge on the property in Fatehabad does not give the Munsif of Fatehabad jurisdiction to entertain an application under Order 34, Rule 6, because that rule only applied to a personal covenant arising from a mortgage. The mortgage suit and the mortgage came within the jurisdiction of the Subordinate Judge of Agra and were not within the jurisdiction of the Munsif of Fatehabad. The order therefore of the Munsif was a perfectly right order.

2. A further objection was made that the District Judge was wrong in. not entertaining an appeal because it is said that under Section 43 (1) (a) an appeal lies against an order under Order 7, Rule 10, returning a plaint to be presented to the proper Court, and it is argued that the application is to be considered as a plaint. Order 7 deals definitely in Rule 1 with plaints meaning regular plaints in regular suits.

3. We consider that an application for a decree under Order 34, Rule 6, cannot be considered to come under 'plaint.' The order of the District Judge was correct and we see no ground for revision. We therefore dismiss this appeal with costs. No one appearing for the respondents, we make no order as to costs.


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